Candace Owens reviews new TPUSA footage and responds to smears from Andrew Kolvet and Blake Neff
Solo episode of the Candace podcast, Episode 379.
Summary
Candace Owens presents new surveillance footage from the scene of Charlie Kirk's death, focusing on the actions of Terrell Farnsworth — specifically his removal of an SD card from a camera at the crime scene and his subsequent use of a laptop, apparently showing something to Philip Goldsberry within ten minutes of Kirk being struck. She argues this raises serious questions about evidence tampering under Utah law, and challenges the competing explanations offered by Tyler Bowyer and Andrew Kolvet. She also addresses the aspect ratio modification of the court footage showing the "maroon guy," presenting video evidence to rebut claims that she used AI to alter the image. The episode then pivots to a detailed response to a segment on the Turning Point USA "Beavis and Butt-Head" show, in which Andrew Kolvet and Blake Neff attempted to smear her as a Hitler apologist — a smear so overreaching that their own guest, Andrew Wilson, fact-checked it on air. Owens also provides extensive context for her early post-assassination conversations with Kolvet, arguing that it was Kolvet himself who first raised the Israeli angle as a possible motive for Kirk's death, and that he is now dishonestly distancing himself from those conversations.
Key Takeaways
FULL TRANSCRIPT
Opening remarks and overview
Candace Owens: Happy Thursday, everyone. Last show before we go on a break for a week. I have a lot to say and a lot to share. I'm just over here reflecting on everything that Turning Point USA has put me through in the last eleven months and how completely unacceptable it is. I don't know if it's just because I'm getting more pregnant — I do get a little bit angrier when I'm growing a boy — but it's just the lies, the attacks, the full-time ring of influencers going after my family, the journalists working with them to insert stories about me implying that I'm the true assassin of Charlie Kirk. It just can't stand, at least not today.
Andrew Kolvet, by the way, is lying so badly. He brought on Andrew Wilson — who I debated last Friday — onto their Beavis and Butt-Head platform, and he tries to smear me. I'm talking about Andrew Kolvet, not Andrew Wilson. He tries to smear me as a Hitler lover. And the smear was so bad that Andrew Wilson actually interjects. Yes — the person that I just debated was the one who interjects and says, "Okay, to be fair, that's not really what happened." I have to show you that. It's just unbelievable and really demonstrates what this organization has become and how they regularly engage in smears and lies.
But first, the purpose of these lies — we know — is to distract us from the investigation. They don't want to discuss any of the footage that we've been presenting on the show. They don't want to answer any of the relevant questions that we've been raising. So that signals to me that we need to stay focused, that they are coming undone, and we need to keep the heat up. Let's do that today. I've got some footage for you.
New surveillance footage: Terrell Farnsworth and Philip Goldsberry
Okay, I'm feeling spicy today. I'm just going to launch a hand grenade right at the top. Ready? Terrell Farnsworth — let's jump right back into this. Again, what I am showing you is footage from within approximately ten minutes of Charlie getting hit. We already showed you that Terrell takes his laptop, and it looks very much like he inserts an SD card into it — an SD card that he just happened to take out of a camera. It appears that he is accessing that footage. What I'm going to show you now is that he even seemingly consults with Philip Goldsberry. You may remember we mentioned Philip Goldsberry — we did a whole episode on him. He is the guy who miked Charlie for that final time, and he was working with Terrell Farnsworth, working under Terrell Farnsworth at Visual Impulse. I just want you guys to see this footage.
Keep your eye there. He gets up and shows something on his laptop to Philip Goldsberry. He sits there and just gets busy on his laptop. It looks like he may be putting something else in there — maybe a second SD card. I'm not exactly sure. I'm just letting you guys watch this so that you can see. We were told by Andrew Kolvet that he was worried about people stealing hats. I'm not getting that sense. It doesn't seem to be a priority.
You can see he's just on that laptop, still moving those hands, tip-tapping away, checking back to make sure nobody is looking. That is important. If I thought there was a sniper running around, I'd probably go into a car to do this — somewhere safer. I'm always amazed that it seems like they knew they were okay. Again, this is within ten minutes of Charlie going down.
The SD card and the question of evidence tampering
Yesterday I joined Ana Kasparian on her program for an interview, and she asked a question that is on a lot of people's minds regarding all of this.
She said: "I don't want it to be lost on our audience, so I want to reiterate — he never provided, and this is based on the testimony that you can hear for yourselves during the preliminary hearing — he never provided the SD card, the original SD card, to the investigation. He just provided the Google links and a flash drive, which would indicate that there's a possibility of evidence tampering."
That is actually a fair question, and it becomes an even more fair question as we demonstrate that he went on to his laptop. The truth is, from what I've researched, it could be a legal gray area — but maybe not really. I'll tell you what I found.
Broadly speaking, yes — everything that we saw Terrell do in terms of violating the crime scene, using Charlie's chair to climb up and remove the camera that was behind Charlie's head, then taking that SD card and inserting it into his pocket, potentially altering it — could indeed register as a very serious legal offense. In the state of Utah, he could be charged with a felony for tampering with evidence, which is defined under the Utah code as altering, destroying, concealing, or removing a thing or item with the purpose of impairing its veracity or availability in a proceeding or investigation.
Now, I want to try to understand that in terms of what we saw. Again, what we are doing here is looking at the evidence with our own eyes under the Utah 1102 rule — doing what Erika's prosecution team did at the preliminary hearing, looking at the videos and inferring upon what we believe we see. What is not in dispute is that Terrell did in fact remove a physical object from the crime scene. He then immediately went behind the tent and put it in his pocket. Would that count as concealing? I'm not sure.
But let us be charitable and accept Andrew Kolvet's excuse that his intent — which does actually matter — was not to steal, but rather to protect, because he really was just trying to secure the SD card from the evil people who were stealing hats. But then what he does next, in my opinion, goes beyond that measure. Because with the SD card now safe and sound in his pocket, what was his impetus to then take it out and insert it into what I presume to be his personal computer? This is very crucial, because it would disrupt the chain of evidence — the crucial chain of who touched everything as it went along — because it presents a real opportunity for the files to have been altered.
Did he zoom into the shot on that camera altogether? Did he take the footage, zoom in, and then take that zoomed-in footage and send a Google link over to the SBI? We don't know. What we can say for certain is that he had zoomed in by the time he presented it to me nine days later. What we also know, according to the testimony of David Hull, the lead investigator — just as Ana Kasparian stated — is that he did not hand over that physical object he took from the crime scene, the SD card, to the lead investigators who arrived on the scene around 1:30. That was demonstrated in court. They received a flash drive; the SD cards were never accounted for.
The competing explanations for Terrell's actions
Now, as for what could be the gray area here — a question that might arise would be surrounding his intent. Did Terrell know that it was a crime scene? Well, Terrell himself was the first to suggest that it was. He declared in a selfie video that Charlie was dead — specifically, he said "he's dead" within approximately two minutes of Charlie getting hit. So Terrell knew that Charlie was dead, and I would argue on the basis of that selfie video that it would be hard to suggest he was not aware that it was a crime scene or that a crime had taken place.
We're left then with the possibility that Terrell was texting someone who had authority and who told him within three to four minutes to secure the footage. But I struggle to understand who would have had that authority, plus Terrell's number, to do that so quickly.
I also want to remind you that Tyler Bowyer, a while ago, claimed on X that it was police who told Terrell to grab the footage. He tweeted this when people were asking why Terrell appeared to be tampering with evidence. He replied: "This dude did not tamper with anything. The law enforcement officers asked them to turn them over immediately so they didn't get lost in the commotion before they took everyone into lockdown. My message is directly pointed at people like you who are promoting completely made-up theories and therefore putting targets on these guys. Knock it off."
Now, I replied to this on my show at the time because I said that's not what Terrell told me. I asked him explicitly. He never once claimed that was true. And as our timeline grows tighter, it's hardly possible that law enforcement officers on the scene told him to secure the footage, because Terrell's video — which he sent me recording himself — has metadata. Terrell was filming himself until just after 12:26. Charlie gets hit at 12:23, and Terrell is filming himself until 12:26 and 16 milliseconds. It's around almost precisely 12:28 that he begins taking the camera down. That's like a minute and a half for someone in law enforcement to tell him, "Hey, could you secure that footage?"
And I think we can safely rule out Allan Robertson as the person who gave that instruction, because Allan would have had no idea who Terrell was. He would have had no idea that it was Terrell's cameras, that it was his setup, in that short time frame. Allan Robertson, we determined, was just visiting from Utah State University. He was undercover because he was there to check out the protesters ahead of the event. He was upstairs when Charlie went down. He was not speaking to any TPUSA people before this event. He didn't know who Terrell was from a hole in the wall.
And I was told — and I will say allegedly here — that actually Terrell was told to do the exact opposite. He ignored instructions like, "Hey, you should not disturb the crime scene." But he may have done so anyway out of nerves. People do make honest mistakes in a crazy situation when they're under pressure. So there's that. But this narrative of "the police told him to do that" — Terrell himself never made that claim. That has only come from Tyler Bowyer. And I explicitly asked Terrell about it. He did not tell me he spoke with police. The only person Terrell mentioned to me that he spoke with was Erika. He did not specifically say when he spoke to Erika, so I want to be clear — I'm not suggesting she was directing him to take the cameras down. I'm just asserting that factually, the only person he mentioned to me was Erika. And he offered that as his excuse and reason for jumping immediately to grab the footage — that it was out of his own volition because he did not want Erika to have to see Charlie die in 4K.
And then I pushed back and said, "What are you talking about? The whole world saw him die in 4K. Why would this back footage somehow save her from that?" That's why I thought things were weird — because everybody was saying something different. Tyler said the police told him to do it. Terrell said he did it out of his own volition to protect Erika. And Andrew Kolvet told the public it was because he was fearful people were going to steal hats. It was suspicious.
The most crucial question: was the footage altered?
The most crucial question, however, is whether or not he altered the footage — whether or not he zoomed in on that back footage. What is he showing Philip Goldsberry, by the way? What is there to show Philip Goldsberry approximately ten minutes after your founder was murdered on your laptop? Was he playing Wordle? Was he showing him his score? These are all fair questions that deserve answers.
Because when I sit down and say, "Let me play devil's advocate" — and to be clear, when you play devil's advocate, you are advocating for the devil, but we will do this as a theoretical exercise — what could make sense that he is showing Philip Goldsberry on his laptop within ten minutes after his founder was killed? He's already registered that Charlie was dead. He said so himself. So you know he was just murdered. What's on the laptop? I truly can't think of anything. I actually want to hear your suggestions. Maybe there's something I'm missing. Make it make sense. I truly can't.
The aspect ratio modification of the court footage
Now, on to another point. One of the stranger things that has happened throughout the course of me presenting evidence is that people keep accusing me of lying. The people who are lying are accusing me of lying as they grow angrier and angrier that they are getting exposed as absolute shills.
Last week we presented — and it went viral — an image of the maroon guy which was presented at court. The influencers were shown this 4K clear footage and they failed to mention what I would have mentioned if I saw it, which is that this guy looks to be a lot wider than Tyler Robinson. I go online and I have that unhinged Canadian lawyer claiming that I used AI, claiming that I'm lying, that I'm essentially committing a type of fraud to try to win — and all I want to win is finding out what actually happened on that day, who killed Charlie Kirk, and whether more people were involved.
People looked at the footage with their own eyes and said, "No, the cars are clearly completely squished in the footage that the court showed. It's very obvious that something happened here and it wasn't Candace. Candace looks like she corrected the measure." They said, "Well, she used AI to do that." That's not true. And I should correct that I got an email informing me that the correct way to describe what was done to the footage is not to say it was compressed — you should say the aspect ratio was decreased to make everything look squeezed. It's more technically correct to say the aspect ratio was decreased rather than saying compressed. Okay, no one's ever accused me of being a tech genius. But the point is it was squished. The footage that you saw in court, that I saw in court, was in effect modified. My government source confirmed that.
So I'm going to show you the footage now in video form so you can see that I did not do that and they lied, as always. There you go. And we will show you this in slow motion so that there is no confusion that we did not edit anything. Here it is in slow-mo. I'm waiting for everybody now to move on to the next lie.
Chain of custody: who modified the footage and why?
I received an email from someone who would know, clarifying that it is highly, highly unlikely that it was the court that did this. They wrote: "I am a blank that works in a federal court. Please do not mention my name or identity in any way. But I can tell you categorically that in every federal court that I have worked in, video and photo evidence is never altered in any way, as it would be considered prejudiced to present it to the jury if it has been modified in any way. I just wanted to let you know this. Best of luck with your continued investigation."
After receiving that, I went back through the preliminary hearing and tried to establish the chain of custody. We were informed of the chain of custody from agent David Hull, the lead investigator on the case, who did not receive the SD cards. He told us that on that very first day, September 10th, Sergeant Mark Bricker of the SBI was put in charge of gathering all of the surveillance on campus at UVU. And when he later addressed the court, right before they presented the twenty-minute sizzle reel — which has the adjusted aspect ratio — he testified that it was the Utah County Attorney's Office that created it.
So when we saw that twenty-minute compilation, that was put together by the Utah County Attorney's Office. Take a listen to him saying that.
The prosecution asked: "Did you prepare that video compilation?"
He replied: "I did not."
"Do you know who did?"
"The Utah County Attorney's Office."
So for clarity — the prosecution, the side that is representing Erika Kirk — it was potentially them that decreased the aspect ratio. Maybe it was the FBI; that remains open. But somebody did it. And the question is who did it and why. The only answer I can come up with is because they wanted people to believe that the person walking was skinnier than they were. And the only reason I can come up with for why they would want that to be the case is because they are hellbent on presenting an argument that makes people think Tyler Robinson acted alone and murdered Charlie Kirk on the rooftop. That has been the narrative from beginning to end. They will not pivot from it. They will not consider new facts. They will not address any of the evidence I am bringing up. They will just routinely dismiss it and say that all I have are vibes and dreams and Candace never has any real evidence.
The talking points are growing increasingly absurd because I can't imagine how much more evidence we could present — though I actually can imagine it, because we're going to do it. But I wanted to show you that just to shut down another lie and to tell you that you are completely justified in still believing your own eyes and ignoring the instructions from these people who want to tell you what you are seeing when it is not in fact what you are seeing.
Did Tyler Robinson do this? Prove it. That's on you. It's on you to convince us and to not use tricks like modifying or altering footage. Terrell — we'd love to know what happened here. If he did zoom in, the question becomes why. And I tend to agree that it is because, as was demonstrated on YouTube, it showed what happened below. I think if there was an impetus to zoom in on that footage, it would be because you did not want it to show the traditional shot of what was happening at Charlie's feet. Anyway, that's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.
Andrew Kolvet's cope after the debate
All right, let's talk about the Beavis and Butt-Head show — so fitting for Andrew Kolvet and Blake Neff. They were joined by Andrew Wilson. That is not their horse. I know what you're thinking. It really seems like Turning Point USA has something to do with this guy. Nope — they made it very clear they don't. He just went in there and came out and suddenly really wanted to go hard at Candace Owens.
What I love about Andrew Kolvet — just saying something nice about him — is that he is completely unaware of himself in a way that I don't know how to describe. He thinks he can just say words. He's also a very bad liar, and he's going to establish all of that in this conversation. He can't remember things he said last week. He obviously doesn't have a timeline. He should have a timeline because then he wouldn't make these sorts of mistakes.
Let's start with Andrew's cope — him basically trying to suggest that I won the argument, but not really, because it's going to age in the future and then I'm going to lose the argument maybe. This is what he had to say.
Andrew Kolvet said: "I predicted that you were going to win this debate because the truth is on your side, right? And as somebody who's lived this firsthand, I know all the garbage when they continually drone on about this stuff and how many lies are continually laced in and just repeated ad nauseam so that the internet begins to believe them. So I knew that. But I also knew that she has a bigger following, bigger followers on YouTube, whatever. So I knew that immediately there was going to be this rush to say who won. But I predicted this. I said this will age really well because what I was watching is that she conceded the whole debate very early on, multiple times, at every different point and juncture. She kept conceding the point, walking things back. And as the commentariat kind of comes in — that has an IQ above room temperature — and pointed that out for people, it was going to then be this kind of finishing effect after the debate. Is that what you have seen, Andrew?"
It is not wine. Debates don't age. You don't keep them in a cellar at a consistent temperature and tell people to open it up in a few years and it'll sound better. He just lost. And that's okay, by the way. That is actually totally fine. That happens sometimes. It could happen to me in the future. And what's really funny about hearing this sort of cope is that, as you guys know, Charlie trained me in debating. And one of the things he always said was, "If you lose a debate, own it. Own it." He said, "The internet will forget if you have a bad moment. They will not forget if you try to gaslight them and pretend it didn't happen." You're supposed to just come right out and say, "Look, was it my best day? I definitely realize I could have delivered this better." Somebody who did this — and the internet kind of forgot about it — was when Ben Shapiro did BBC and got completely crushed in a debate. He kind of got bratty and said something like "I'm famous" and wanted to end the conversation, and it went completely viral. But he went onto his platform and said, "Yep, I own that. I was not prepared. Here's what I did wrong." And that is so much more preferable to audiences because they're not being gaslighted. Obviously he was terrible. Just own it and people will forgive and forget. But obviously they are not carrying on the torch for Charlie whatsoever.
Andrew Wilson's response and the steakhouse receipt
Anyway, I want you to hear how Andrew Wilson responded.
Andrew Wilson said: "Essentially what happened here was really interesting. The Baron Colemans of the world and the sort of law tube picked all of this up and just started tearing her position to pieces immediately. And the commentators in the debate sphere are just making a mockery of her. They think that she's a lunatic who has no idea what she's talking about. And then on the flip side, even on the mainstream coverage, it's the same thing — 'Well, where's any of the evidence for any of these supposed claims?' And we never got to any. So not only will it age well, but what I thought it would do more than anything else — to be as candid as possible — I thought it would up the pressure of people questioning the questioners. And I've seen a lot of that now moving on social media, of people saying, 'Hey, wait a second. Where is the actual evidence?' I got hundreds of DMs from people who didn't know that the steakhouse receipt was a complete phony fraud, that the whole thing is a fraud."
Can I just say — no idea that that was the case? We have Andrea Birkhart joining us on the show tomorrow. She is as apolitical as it comes. She is not on a side at all. And I asked her, "If they had exculpatory evidence — whether it's the parents who actually think he's innocent or they have some steakhouse receipt — would they not present that at the preliminary hearing?" And she said, "Absolutely they would."
No duh. No lawyer, if they have exculpatory evidence that proves the timeline wrong, that proves the parents don't actually think he's guilty — would not use that evidence. Because those lawyers are then basically binding their client over for three years in prison for something that he didn't actually do. They absolutely would have presented that evidence at the preliminary hearing.
I still do not understand why they keep trying to imagine that the Penguin Steakhouse, Cowboy Steakhouse thing is fake and is a fraud. It's just not. I don't know how many times I can say this. I guess I'm going to basically say to them what I said to Andrew face to face: you can keep saying this. You're going to eventually embarrass yourself. As I said, they got in touch with the FBI. The FBI is aware of this. The FBI took a statement from the owner. I spoke to the owner. The server has given an interview. There is a receipt. If you're trying to wonder why they didn't present this exculpatory evidence, maybe you should try paying attention to the hearings, because back during the one in April, they kept saying that they had not been granted discovery, that they had so many things they needed to go through, and that they wanted to take that time — the reason they were asking for an extension on that preliminary hearing was because they had so many things to go through and were not receiving their discovery requests, which could have potentially included exculpatory evidence.
This was actually found by podcasters who were investigating and stumbled upon it. And like I said, the FBI was contacted. There is a report made. It happened. I'm so sorry, but it happened.
Now, if they weren't being absurd, they would just say, "Okay, yeah, I hear you, but Candace — is it possible that the server just misidentified him?" And then I'd say, "Yeah, of course. There's always a possibility that people truly believe that they see someone." We can verify that this person was at the restaurant. We can verify that they called the FBI. We can verify that the owner pulled the receipt. We can verify what the person ate, that there is a receipt, and that it was paid for on a debit card. Asking me to go to the Visa merchant is absurd and insane. But it happened. That receipt is going to become critical and it could in fact prove to be exculpatory. So stay tuned.
The fake transparency exercise: "Ask us anything"
The next bit of what takes place on this show is a whole fake bit of transparency where essentially Andrew Kolvet pretends that he's going to allow Andrew Wilson to ask them anything — like, "Oh, we're going to do what Candace wouldn't do. You can just ask us anything." So we're hoping he's going to start asking relevant things about the case, the many holes, the way they're behaving, some of the evidence I've presented, some of the videos, asking about potentially other players. No — all this means is: please give me an opportunity to trash Candace.
The Hitler smear — and Andrew Wilson's fact-check
Andrew Kolvet, right out of the gate, tries to smear me as a Hitler lover. And it's so offensively dishonest that it's even too much for Andrew Wilson. He actually fact-checks it. First you get Blake laughing. And then just watch Blake's face transform as he realizes that Andrew Wilson's not going to let them get away with that. Take a listen.
Andrew Kolvet said: "Then she had that event where she basically said Hitler was great if he just would have stayed in Germany."
Blake Neff responded: "Stayed in Germany, which, you know, there's a lot of problems."
Andrew Wilson then said: "Now, to be fair and charitable here — just to be as unbiased as possible — I did go back and review that clip, as that seemed like it was the turning point for Turning Point. It didn't seem to me that she was actually trying to make any sort of apologetics for Hitler, but rather she was trying to make a comparison to nationalism and saying that as a nationalist she thought he did a good job. And then she basically just kind of misspoke and buried herself with that particular lead, but obviously it became a massive PR nightmare for Turning Point. That's how that ended up playing out."
Andrew Kolvet replied: "Well, I think it's one of those statements where you can defend it in isolation, and then events afterwards lend greater clarity to it."
Andrew Wilson: "Yeah, it was part of a whole."
Andrew Kolvet: "Like, the defense you could make is, oh, she just meant he wanted Germany's economy to grow, he wanted to undo Versailles, she didn't mean the weird, you know, kill all the Jews. Except then in 2023, 2024, she actually becomes obsessed with the Jews all the time."
Andrew Wilson: "Yeah, I would say it was part of a whole, though, to your point. Yeah, you could — if that was a one-off, you probably could have defended it. But then we had a bunch of chapters that were really up in arms about it. And then you had the Christchurch shooter in New Zealand who said she was an inspiration — it was a whole bunch of stuff."
It is just absolutely mortifying that Andrew Wilson actually watched the clip. We weren't talking about Jews at all. We were talking about the topic of nationalism, and I was asked a question specifically like, "Candace, when you say that you're a nationalist, some people might attribute that to Adolf Hitler." And I said, "Well, it's not attributable to Adolf Hitler because Adolf Hitler — if he had just wanted to stay in Germany and make Germany great — we wouldn't have an issue with that. No one would have an issue with that. But he didn't just want to do that. He had ambitions outside of Germany." That's what I said. And they took that and Blake is just little sneering, trying to make it seem as though I supported Adolf Hitler. That is why Turning Point USA is trash. They are trash for that. There was no confusion. It was just an attempt to smear me, and it was a bridge too far for Andrew Wilson, who said, "Okay, but I watched that clip and that's not what was happening."
Then they obviously move on. And by the way, he says, "Oh, well, then later on she gets obsessed with Jews." First off, he's talking about a gap of 2018 — when I was speaking about nationalism on stage with Charlie, by the way, leaving that part out as well. I was with Charlie and journalists were in the room and nobody had a problem with it at all. And then Buzzfeed pulls the clip months later. Then he fast-forwards and says, "Oh, but in 2024, there was an issue where Candace said genocide is always wrong." And that's when things got — she's obsessed with not killing children in Israel. That's what he really means.
The friendship with Charlie Kirk: debunking the TPUSA timeline
So then they move on and try to reassert this idea that Charlie and I were not friends. And this is always my favorite one, because Andrew is so accidentally stupid that he doesn't realize he debunks himself in just one sweeping statement. He's going to try to make fun and then he's going to debunk it. So listen to what Blake says and what Andrew says, and then I'm going to allow you to listen to what Charlie said.
Andrew Wilson asked: "I'd like to start by going all the way back. Maybe you can tell us what the relationship was between Candace Owens and Charlie Kirk. What actually was it?"
Blake Neff said: "I'd like to go first there, even though you have far more to say, Andrew, because I can just speak from my perspective as someone who arrived late '22, moved out here in '23. I have never met Candace Owens and don't know her. Maybe I saw her in person once at a distance. Maybe I shook her hand. I've never had a conversation with her to my knowledge. And I think that speaks to something, because I was with Charlie for close to three years, and I feel like I met most of the people Charlie was super close with. I met donors. I met his family members. I met his team. I met a lot. And I don't know Candace. So I like to use that as a preface."
Andrew Kolvet then said: "If you go back far enough — that's why I put out that tweet basically saying, Candace, your central foundational lie is that you and Charlie were friends. You were not friends. Show me something from recent — the end of Charlie's life, the last 12 months, or whatever. I think she showed something at 22 months. And so I got community noted. Okay, whatever. What I can tell you is that I think Charlie and Candace were friends back in 2018, part of 2019. That did not end well. At all, actually."
So weird — because if it didn't end well at all, the question becomes: why were Charlie and Erika at my wedding at the end of 2019? And what's funny is he mentions this clip of Blake at the beginning, but that clip he's referring to is Charlie discussing our friendship in November of 2023. So he's trying to say we haven't been friends since 2018, but he references this clip of Charlie and Blake looking unhappy about it — because Blake didn't know Charlie. Blake didn't know who Charlie's friends were, as he admits. He's like, "I didn't meet Candace." I got married and had children and lived on the other side of the country. That's just how it works. My best friends I see about once or twice a year because we've moved. Friends that live in Florida, people that live in Connecticut — that's just the way life works when you get married and start having kids. The donors are not his friends. Blake, I know you guys love money, but when he says "I've met his friends" — I mean, I know the donors. You're just a work colleague, so you see him every day at work. You don't know Charlie. You guys are not his friends.
And this clip is what he is referring to as he then moves on and says we weren't friends since 2018. He keeps going backwards — it's like he keeps going a year back. Listen to Charlie in his own words in November of 2023.
Charlie Kirk said: "I mean, Candace — she's on our team. She's the best, right? I mean, we're on team Candace. And I'm also on team Freedom Center, too. But I got a text message from some lunatic — 'Charlie, why do you have her still speaking at AmFest?' I said, 'Lose my number.'"
Someone responded: "Wow."
Charlie continued: "I said, 'You obviously haven't been through the Charlie-Candace thing.'"
Another voice: "I mean, from the — I thought you were married. They were like, 'Are they buried?' Remember?"
Charlie: "Oh, it was this unsubstantiated internet rumor."
Someone: "Yeah, that's not true. Not true, but—"
Charlie: "It's not true. Okay. I'm remembering some choice memes that I definitely don't have saved on my backup hard drives."
So they want you to think that Charlie is just lying there, reminiscing and lying, and that "team Candace, lose my number" is something he says to someone who wasn't his friend. I mean, it's just such an absurdity. And I have presented evidence every year, every year from 2018. They keep sticking to this 2018 timeline because after Charlie passed, I showed people text messages of Charlie predicting his own death in 2018 — because that is relevant, that in 2018, Charlie foresaw that he was going to die young and that I was going to carry on the torch. He said, "Be my David. I don't think I'm going to live this thing through." When I signed on the dotted line with Turning Point USA, from the moment I signed on, he started having visions of his own death. That is the reason they started this ridiculous narrative that I didn't speak to Charlie since 2018. It's such nonsense and it's so easily debunked. We've debunked it so many times on this show and yet they still push it because they have nothing left. They cannot respond to anything and they are trying to rewrite Charlie's history.
Charlie and I were very close. We were like brother and sister. Yes, we spent so much time together when we were obviously both single. And once you become a parent and get married, your relationship has to change — your priorities change, and you also have to have respect for his wife, which I did. He was married. And he had to have respect for my husband. George became close to Charlie. The whole year of our engagement we traveled around with Charlie and we have so many memories. He has so many messages with Charlie. So I don't know — it just makes me laugh that they think they can do this. It's just not going to be possible.
And then of course in the very next breath — which I'm not going to show you — he then says, "Oh, she had — he totally had her back when she got fired from the Daily Wire." Yeah, Andrew, that's now pushing your timeline up to 2024. I was fired in March of 2024. So how long are you trying to say that we weren't friends? It's just such nonsense. Truly, let it go, Blake. Nobody knows who you are. Neither did Charlie. Okay, you started working for him in 2023. You're not laughing because you know anything. Tyler's laughing because he does.
The "primadonna" claim and the France trip
This part was the most incredible to me — when he asks for an example of why I left Turning Point USA, and he says I was difficult to work with. Here's what Andrew Kolvet explains happened one time.
Andrew Kolvet said: "She was a rising star. She was growing really fast. Charlie famously sort of offered her a job basically right on meeting her — kind of saw that she was somebody that could help Turning Point, help the movement in his opinion. And then she explodes onto the scene. Kanye had that tweet where he was like, 'I like the way Candace Owens thinks,' and it was kind of like a rocket ship. But she became more and more difficult to work with. More and more issues with the team."
Andrew Wilson asked: "When you say difficult to work with, what do you mean?"
Andrew Kolvet replied: "I think she was very aware of her rising star power. And so she started exerting more demands on timing, on where she could be deployed, what schools—"
Andrew Wilson: "So she was becoming like a primadonna."
Andrew Kolvet: "You could use that word."
Blake Neff: "That's what I've heard. I've definitely heard complaints from people who have worked with her."
Andrew Kolvet: "And that continued on after when we started working with her later on. I think she canceled an event with us and our event team still tells this story — the day before, and we had to scramble to get it replaced because she ended up in France with Kanye or something the next day."
I just want to address that because he's such a slimeball. That is the only time that I canceled an event with Turning Point USA. So he's telling the truth — by the way, that's 2022, late 2022. I thought me and Charlie were not supposed to be friends. Everyone remembers the moment that I went to France and I wore the White Lives Matter t-shirt. Obviously it was not a planned trip whatsoever. I had no idea that Kanye was going to call me and invite me. And because of our friendship, Charlie knew how much Kanye meant to me. This moment — the fact that we had built Turning Point USA, this machine, that I had just also released a documentary on Black Lives Matter, that I had stumped so many college campuses for Turning Point USA, raising money, with this vision of waking Black people up to the Democratic Party and some of the lies constantly being sold — Charlie was there for that entire journey. Kanye, obviously, is the reason that Turning Point USA was put on the map. "I love the way Candace Owens thinks" — and then it was an absolute rocket ship for both of us, for me and for Charlie.
So when I called Charlie and I was like, "I just got invited" — and he knew how much Kanye meant to me and my life and my growth and giving me the strength, his music, I would constantly run to it, Charlie was running to it every single day — he knew that I had a moment to make all of this come together and go to France. I called him and said, "Charlie, it was the only thing on my calendar. I had Turning Point USA and I was like, I will literally give anything to be able to go on this event." And he was like, "Of course you have to go." It was actually a demonstration of our unique friendship. Of course you have to go. Please just get me a substitute — who can speak for you. I then called Michael Knowles and asked him if he would sub for me, and I was unbelievably apologetic to the team. I had never, ever, ever in our entire working relationship canceled an event. And Andrew brings this up as if this proves I was a diva. No — it proved that Charlie really knew how much something meant to me and we made it work. It was atypical. It was one time. It was in late 2022.
So I just wanted to answer for that because I couldn't believe he tried to repackage that as if I was some diva who was like, "Peace to the team, I'm just going to France to go shopping" — not that I had asked Charlie for permission to do that. And he was just so gracious and amazing and supportive as he always was. And if the event team is still talking about that, I tell them to get over it. I mean, it's just so ridiculous.
"I will burn down that organization" — the full context
I also want to show you this clip which they're trying to push — that Candace told me she was going to burn Turning Point USA to the ground. All right, Andrew, let us hear what you have to say.
Andrew Kolvet said: "I remember one conversation, it was probably like five or six days after, and I remember I had flown to DC. We had JD Vance host Charlie's show on that Monday after. So Charlie was killed on a Wednesday and then JD hosts the show on the Monday. So I remember I flew back, landed in the airport, and I believe I was talking to Candace, and she said something that I've not publicly communicated yet. But basically it was — if the wrong people take over the organization — and she said this, I'll never forget it — she says, 'I will burn down that organization. I swear to God.' And you mean Turning Point?"
Blake Neff interjected: "Turning Point. If the wrong people— And I just assumed because she was very obviously anti-Jews at this time, like there was five days, six days after whatever it was. She said, 'I'm going to burn down that organization. I swear to God.' And I just thought she meant if the Jews take over or something."
Andrew Kolvet added: "Ben Shapiro. Let's just say the name. People were throwing out because Ben Shapiro had appeared on the show. So people ran with like, Ben Shapiro has now taken over."
Blake Neff: "Well, he hadn't appeared — I don't know if he had appeared on that. I think he was actually going to show up the next day on the Tuesday."
Yeah, Blake, you have no idea what you're talking about. Actually, if you go back and watch my show, I said early on — and now I have a different opinion — I said I think people who all think that Ben Shapiro, because he said "pick up the bloody mic," wants to take over Turning Point USA — I said I think that's just wrong. I'm on record saying that. So you can't just make stuff up, Blake, and pretend that I was taking the bait about Ben Shapiro.
What I was actually taking the bait on was the conversations that I was having with Andrew Kolvet on the phone. I was speaking to Andrew Kolvet on the phone every single day. And it was Andrew Kolvet who was telling me — and we were speaking about a potential foreign angle in Charlie's assassination. I can show you text messages to that effect. I can actually show you this call log. He's talking about literally on September 14th, after he and I had been speaking. You have the exact date, Andrew, in case you want to make a timeline. September 14th, 2025 was when you and I spoke for seventeen minutes. On the 13th, on the 12th, you were the one telling me about the Bill Ackman summit. You were the one telling me about Netanyahu's letter and telling me that Mikey McCoy had this letter on Charlie's laptop. And you told me basically that Charlie, in this letter, said that he was kind of pulling away from the Israel cause. We talked about that extensively. You were the one who told me about the text messages — notice I'm saying plural text messages — to Dan Flood and to yourself the night before, that Charlie thought he was going to be killed. And you never once said it was the left. In fact, I specifically asked you, "Who is 'they'?" And you said, "I don't know."
You were the one who told me about that chat — Charlie saying "I'm abandoning the pro-Israel cause." So don't make it seem like it's weird that I was thinking about Israel in those days. And then Netanyahu goes on and says "I didn't kill him" as you are feeding me this information — information I would not have had otherwise — about how Charlie declined to have Netanyahu on his show and was growing increasingly more agitated with Israeli involvement and willing to walk away from this. And I can even show a text message that I sent to you — and then we talked on the phone because you're a PR agent, so whenever I would text, you would call — where I even said to you, after Netanyahu went on and held up the letter, I messaged you because you were the one who told me about the letter and said: "I can't sleep. Just destroyed. September 11th." This is all September 11th, but you were on a plane so it was coming in weird. You wrote, "Same, in and out of sleep and I'm up again." I said, "Who did this? This was a government hit. We need answers." And then on September 11th, you and I had a conversation and I said, "Netanyahu's lying about the contents of a letter that Charlie wrote him. He's making it seem like it was just him writing a love letter about how much he loves Israel. I know that's not true and it's making me sick." I know it wasn't true because Andrew Kolvet was the one who told me about the letter.
So it's just incredible that he is reintroducing this as if — Candace was like, "She's going to burn." I was basically saying that if this is true and there is foreign involvement, we will burn this place to the ground. If they're staging this to try to take over his company — meaning we, because I'm talking to you, and this is Charlie's organization, and we don't know who killed him yet, we don't know what the motive was — and he was totally supportive and giving me more information, and now he's pretending like, "Oh, I don't know why she said that. I was so scared."
And actually, what he said to me on the 14th was, "On that front, we're good. We don't have to worry about that because the board has already voted in Erika — don't say this yet, we're not announcing it publicly, but Erika is taking over the company." And what I said to him was, "Thank God." So he left that out. He left out the context that Candace actually became a bull, and as he was telling me information about how Charlie was pulling away from Israel as a possible motive for what happened — as we had no answers, this is four days after Charlie's assassination, we didn't know anything, we didn't know if there were foreign ties, we knew nothing — and he is giving me this Israeli narrative. Now he's like, "Oh, I think she just thought it was the Jews. I don't know why." Well, you do know why, Andrew — that I thought Israel was involved in this and why I still believe that there is an Israeli angle. And to try to wrench yourself out of that as the person who was my number one source on all of this information is complete lunacy.
And I think I have a message where I even said, "Give Erika my number." I did. Was that on there where I was like, "Give Erika my new number"? Like, on the 14th, after we're talking about this — I'm angry now, I'm at a stage of real anger — "Also please send Erika my new number. She only has my old one." Your whole narrative that you're trying to sell now — as if I was very happy that Erika was taking over the organization and when I was fearful that there could have been some sort of outside foreign involvement and motive with Israel — try to tell the truth, Andrew. Try to put things in their proper context. Tell the truth about France and what was going on and why Charlie agreed to it. Tell the truth about why Israel was on my mind. What you said about Bill Ackman staging an intervention. What you said about Charlie declining to have Netanyahu on his show. Which you also admitted you even expressed that concern to Joe Kent — which you now make it seem like he's an enemy. But you were the one who put the Israel narrative in everyone's mind, Andrew. It was you.
And by the way, I think for the first time ever, you were telling the truth. You were telling the truth. And then you suddenly pulled it all back and started lying and have been attacking us since — the people who are trying to get to the bottom of this. And I have to assume that you're doing it out of fear. That's the most charitable read on why you're lying in this way — out of fear. Because if you truly do believe that Israel had something to do with Charlie's assassination, then you would probably recognize that they would have no trouble assassinating you too. Again, that is my most charitable read. But I wanted to put things in their proper context because this is all they have left. Of course, they spent no time going over any of the explosive evidence or answering any of the questions that we actually want to know from Turning Point USA, because they're not going to do that.
Viewer comments
All right, top comments from yesterday's episode. Amy wrote, "The way the crime scene was treated is absurd. I totally agree with you." Medina wrote, "Nice that you can spend time together before baby number five arrives. Happy anniversary, Candace and George." Thank you so much.
Comments from today's episode: Roll Tide in Vegas writes, "The truth will come out regardless of whoever is trying to hide it. Thank you for your eye-opening work. I pray for the world to wake up to the evil that is all around us and for your safety. We know how it ends. God always wins. Christ is king. Enjoy your much-deserved week off." Thank you guys so much for that. And yeah, it's also just good because we are doing so much research and we just need to break as a team. It's high stakes. We want to make sure that we're not making any mistakes, that we're thoroughly building out our timeline, following up on leads, trying to close others. And that just takes time. So that's really why we started doing the six weeks on, one week off structure, which has proven to be very beneficial for us and I think the show has gotten better because of it.
Seven Sheets writes, "I have to do this for Andrew. Room-temp IQ, so delusional. How's the Andrew Kolvet channel going? Smart guy. Also, Blake never met her." Yeah, we believe you, Candace.
And lastly: "I'm going to miss you over your well-deserved break. Please never stop. We want justice for that undeniably great man Charlie Kirk and against those who are trying to hijack his important, needed message." Yeah. I mean, when we were discussing that — of course, if Charlie was killed for his company, that's the right perspective to have, that I will breathe fire on this company. And then I thought everything was great because Erika took over, and now I'm going, "Oh my gosh, no, it actually isn't great." And I think that's what's making Andrew so angry — that he knew more than I knew, obviously. And so what would have been taken as a sign of friendship — like, "Hey, let's get together" — my mindset in those early days was I just never for a single second thought anything Turning Point USA would have indicated that Turning Point USA was suspicious. And I went in there with a genuine heart, basically saying to Andrew, "Use me as your dragon. Because if this is how this went down and Charlie lost his life to this, I'm just so angry and we have to fight it, whoever it is." It was basically a call to war. And I'm very proud of that. I'm proud that I was loyal to Charlie and was willing to fight whoever it is. And that's what I'm doing right now. I'm still doing that.
I made that clear. I said that on my own show in those early days. You're not breaking any news. I said on my own show that anybody who did this, who somehow coordinated and tried to take down Charlie for their own selfish means, had been an enemy of mine. And I meant that. And it sure as heck is not because of some narrative that I wanted his company. I do not want to run a 501(c)(3). Thank you very much. My life is great. I don't even run my own company. So I'm good. Life is good being a mom and being able to podcast.
Bigfoot Believer writes, "Something that really saddens me is knowing in my gut that Tyler Robinson made friends with a bad crowd and is now sitting in jail for something that he did not do and will most likely be given life imprisonment, if not death. I have a 22-year-old and I think about that and it hurts my soul." I've said from the beginning that I think he got mixed up in something. I know that he was around campus that day because of a source. I'm open to thinking that there are multiple people wearing maroon shirts — like maybe Tyler is the one walking down the street, maybe he dropped Lance. So I don't know. We were the ones who obviously revealed the Dairy Queen photo, so we know he was around campus that day. And I told you that the story I got was that he was dumping clothes in a cemetery. What does that mean? Could that mean that his tampering with evidence charge is appropriate, or obstruction of justice? I'm open to all of that. But the idea that he's the one who fired the shot at Charlie Kirk — I don't even know if a shot was fired. I don't even believe a shot was fired from Loy Center. Forget whether or not he fired some miracle bullet shot, one and done, and then jumped off a rooftop. Absolutely not. I don't buy that. I'm at zero percent. That's what I'm at. I am at zero percent that Tyler Robinson shot and killed Charlie Kirk from the Loy rooftop. Open to other theories about how he could have been involved and whether he got swept up in something because of Lance, who I find to be remarkably suspicious.
Impact CPA writes, "Very important — who is Terrell texting after getting the SD card? Shapiro team again, like in the car going to the hospital. That video angle needed to be quickly checked and altered if necessary." Well, it would be very helpful if they just came out and answered some questions and we wouldn't have to speculate. But we know that's not going to happen and they're going to say it's all in the purview of law enforcement.
Capital T for Truth writes, "TPUSA likes making this harder for themselves. The so-called text message from Charlie still does not put Tyler Robinson on the roof or the rifle in his hand. Now they have to prove he's on the left. Even Lance said that they never talked about Charlie or LGBTQ." And we're not supposed to have a reaction to that. Their entire narrative is that this was a political assassination because he was radical on the topic of LGBTQ. And so they want us to believe Lance when he hands over his messages, but not to believe Lance when he says he was not political and they never talked about LGBTQ issues. It doesn't work that way. It does not work that way.
Autumn writes, "Tweedle D and Tweedle Dumb can talk to Smokey about you, but they can't just publicly talk to you. That would only prove them to be lying, conniving imbeciles that they are. I pray for their day of reckoning." Honestly, the laugh that Blake is doing is just so funny to watch — his face transform once he realizes that Andrew Wilson watched that clip and noted that I didn't do or say anything wrong, and they were literally trying to make me a Hitler apologist. It's really something. And like I said, it exposes what their motives are. And I always say the offer still stands — I never asked to debate Turning Point. I would love to sit down with Turning Point publicly and discuss these matters and maybe put some of these alternative theories to bed. That would be beneficial, I think, for both sides. But they are in such a place of anger, spending money to just have people try to destroy me. And we have spent zero dollars — zero dollars — trying to get anybody to go after them. We've just been focused on trying to solve this case and noticing a lot of inconsistencies.
Thumbelina's Grace writes, "Gosh, they are so exhausting. It's like watching three church ladies meeting at the fence post to gab about the latest town gossip." It is like watching that. There's no substance to that show anymore. Charlie discussed ideas. They clearly had Andrew on to just try to smear Candace, and it is going to backfire because everything they do always does.
Suburban Style writes, "Hi Candace. My brother and I watch and discuss your show every day. Would you please help me wish my brother Al a happy 50th?" Happy 50th, Al. I hope you have an amazing birthday. I hope you're listening to my podcast and are going to be able to hear me say that, or at least have your sister or your brother clip this out so that you know that I hope it was a good one. Spend time with your family.
Simon Webster writes, "Candace, imagine you're in the X-Men universe and have Professor X's telepathy. You can read minds within a 250-mile radius. Which five people in the world would you deliberately get close enough to read and why?" I would go right into Turning Point, obviously, and get answers for Charlie Kirk's assassination. That would be the thing I did immediately. I'd probably do Kash Patel on the day of the tweeting and what they were going to do. I would probably do Andrew — I don't want to be in his mind, it's just so wasteful. I would do Erika Kirk for sure, because it's a puzzle and I think the world would like to know what's happening in there and maybe get some answers to some of the things that she's done thereafter. I would definitely do someone who was on the ground that day, like Mikey McCoy, who had a lot of action and could therefore allow me to access his memories of what really went down at Timpanogos and the hospital and beyond in the lead-up to that. And I just really don't want to be in Blake's head. I probably would access Mike Mitchell's mind as well, because he has been a central character in all of this that we just don't get to see and meet, and he seems like he brought things together. Am I at five? I feel like then I have to do one more and it would probably be Lance Twigs.
But I think anybody who watches the show knows that I'm a huge X-Men fan and I'm Mystique always. I'm always Mystique. So don't play this — I don't want to be Professor X. I want to be Mystique. And it has to be specifically not the Jennifer Lawrence Mystique. It's the Rebecca Romijn-Stamos one. So thank you for playing the game. That's me right there.
I think I got everybody here. No, I missed Pri. Pri wrote, "Imagine being grown men sitting on your dead friend's podcast talking crap about a pregnant woman and thinking that you are doing the Lord's work." It's just pathetic. It really is. They should just shut down the show. Him trying to basically appeal to authority — "Well, when people who had high IQs got on" — you mean the neocon frauds who tell us that we should go to war with Iran? Who said that you won? It's just exhausting to watch them do this day in and day out, and they can't be successful at it. So what's the point of continuing it on?
Charlie cared a lot about that show. It was one of his lifelong goals. He loved Rush Limbaugh. He couldn't wait to one day be able to do the same three hours of radio every single day, day in and day out. And he did it and he was successful because he was brilliant. And I am sorry to be the one to tell you guys, but you will not — you can't fill Charlie's shoes. And what you have done has been an absolute embarrassment to everything that he has built. Just shut it down, Turning Point USA. Start over and build something else. Lean into the neocon thing, call it something else. This is just such a farce at this point. You must be exhausted. You all look tired.