Candace Owens presents new Dodge Challenger footage and responds to TPUSA's claims about the Nampa Christian School assembly
Candace Owens covers two stories: new surveillance footage from UVU on the morning of September 10th, and TPUSA's response to her reporting on Erika Kirk's assembly at Nampa Christian School.
Summary
Candace Owens presents previously unseen surveillance footage from the morning of September 10th showing a gray Dodge Challenger and a black SUV arriving together at UVU's admissions lot at 8:00 a.m. — approximately the same time Tyler Robinson's Dodge Challenger is separately documented entering the campus parking structure. She argues this raises serious reasonable doubt about the prosecution's ability to identify which Dodge Challenger was which, given that their evidence relies heavily on shoe identification. She also reveals that UVU conducted a mass casualty simulation with crisis actors and nearly 20 federal and local agencies on June 17th — the same week Charlie Kirk argued with Benjamin Netanyahu and Erika Kirk purged her Instagram. In the second major segment, Owens responds to TPUSA's Blake Neff and Andrew Kolvet, who called her a liar over her reporting on Erika Kirk's assembly at Nampa Christian School in Idaho. She reads a detailed parent email and shares the school's Monday newsletter, both of which she says confirm her original reporting: the event was a mandatory assembly, parents were given only three days' notice, students were not offered a formal opt-out, gym doors were locked, student questions were screened, and parents who asked to attend were denied. In the comments section, Owens also addresses her previously shared dream about Charlie Kirk's betrayal — noting that Andrew Kolvet was the only figure she could identify in it — and observes that TPUSA's continued mockery of the dream more than a year later suggests it touched something real.
Key Takeaways
FULL TRANSCRIPT
Opening remarks and Breijit Doll contractual terms
Candace Owens: Happy Monday. I do want to say right at the top here, because it has understandably become an area of major concern regarding my maternity leave and my substitute teacher Baron Coleman — everyone in the world wants to know what will become of our sweet Breijit Doll. This was naturally the ugliest part of our contractual negotiations. Honestly, the first seven pages of our contract are dedicated to Breijit Doll and I did not give one inch. I want to make sure it's a matter of public record: Baron has agreed to love Breijit Doll like his own. He will talk to her and ask her advice across various topics that he covers while in this seat. Breijit will be Baron's queen consort. And if Baron pivots at all from this contractual term, we are going to sue him until he's dead. That's what's been agreed to.
Overview of today's episode
Now, moving on to less important things. Today I have another never-before-seen video — actually, it's more like four of them, because it's Monday and it's just fun to do hood rat things on a Monday and I think it makes matters more interesting. Positive evidence and all from the morning of September 10th, which could complicate matters. Plus, we have an update from the parents of Nampa Christian School regarding Erika's visit, the bizarre gaslighting campaign which came from Turning Point USA — Andrew Kolvet in particular, Blake Neff in particular — and they have now included an angry grandma from Twitter to back up their claims. We'll see about that.
The legal standard and the Tyler Robinson case
Welcome back to Candace. Beyond a reasonable doubt, ladies and gentlemen — that is indeed the legal standard of proof which must be reached to secure a criminal conviction for aggravated murder. And to be clear, it is the prosecution that bears that burden, not Candace Owens. I know that seems a little confusing. If you're paying attention to Turning Point USA, you're going, "Does Candace have to meet a burden of proof?" No. No. I'm actually shockingly not involved in the case at all. It is the prosecution that has to present evidence which moves a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
Now, of course, that was not the legal standard for the probable cause hearing. As we have unpacked many times, it was much more like whatever you can infer — have some vibes. Did you see a Dodge Challenger? Yeah, you can simply say, "I feel like that belongs to Tyler Robinson." Did you happen upon a student that was wearing some Converse sneakers on campus? Well, who else would it be but Tyler Robinson?
I just want to say that that moment from the preliminary hearing still ranks for me as one of the wilder portions. Agent Hull implying that what convinced him that the person wearing the maroon shirt must have also been the same person who came back to campus wearing a black long-sleeve shirt with an American flag — was that they were both wearing Converse sneakers. Take a listen to what he said, because it's so crazy.
Agent Hull: You believe this is Mr. Robinson returning to campus?
Questioner: I do. Yes.
Agent Hull: And why do you believe this is Mr. Robinson?
Questioner: The shoes are the same, and the images that we have — from my viewing and seeing Mr. Robinson on the video — it's the same person.
Candace Owens: That was it. The shoes are the same. And I just feel like police work should be more thorough than that. I was waiting for: "Well, we tracked the Dodge Challenger. We followed him off and on to campus. We saw him change. We have footage." No — he's just like, "Well, this student's wearing Converses and this student's wearing Converses, so obviously we can see that they're the same person." Okay. Whatever. Their standards, not mine.
The Dodge Challenger narrative and the decoy theory
Now, there is the mysterious case of the Dodge Challenger altogether — a car which we are supposed to believe that only Tyler Robinson drives within the state of Utah. Every time this car is seen on or around campus, whether it's later that day, they're like, "It's Tyler Robinson's." Even when a neighbor said, "Actually, I saw a bald guy with two people in the back," they're like, "Still Tyler Robinson. Still counts as Tyler Robinson for us."
And you guys know what my theory has been from the very beginning of this. I just had a feeling that there might have been multiple decoys, because just too many single white males were wearing maroon shirts when I looked at the audience that day that came to listen to Charlie. And they were all alone, by the way — they weren't in packs traveling together. They were all just standing alone. Multiple people dressed as we are supposed to assume Tyler Robinson dresses every day. And I thought also perhaps there were multiple individuals who could have been driving a Dodge Challenger around campus on that day as well. Like I said, I've been holding on to this theory since September. And as we've moved forward in our investigation, more and more evidence that we have uncovered makes that theory at least plausible.
What I'm describing — a bunch of different decoys — is actually a movie plot. I don't know if you're familiar with this. It draws to mind the eternal question: is art mimicking life, or is life mimicking art? I don't know. But the movie to which I refer is The Thomas Crown Affair. I think the best one was with Pierce Brosnan, wherein Pierce Brosnan, who is the lead character, executes a perfect art heist — I think he's taking a Monet. Sorry for the spoiler alerts. But he accomplishes this by having multiple decoys all wearing bowler hats and similar jackets. The feds are watching and they're like, "What is going on?" The police start grabbing them — they're all wearing the same thing and it's a different person. Really quite a clever plot. Like, I think that would be a very good plot to execute in broad daylight if you wanted to accomplish something, because if everyone's wearing maroon then no one's wearing maroon, right?
New surveillance footage: the admissions lot on September 10th
Anyway, I received a tip from some UVU students. They told me that the admin lot — they all refer to it as the admin lot; we've since determined that technically it's the admissions lot — is regularly used by the feds. Now, I want you to remember that UVU campus has a high federal presence because it is a pipeline school to go work for the feds, to work for the CIA, to work for the NSA, and or for the Department of Defense. They have programs that put you on that track. And this might explain why they do really weird things on the campus as well, just like what they did back on June 17th.
This is incredible — by the way, we never covered this, but you should know this. On June 17th, just a couple of months before Charlie's death — it's also the week that Charlie had the argument with Bibi Netanyahu, the same week that Erika purged her Instagram accounts — they conducted a simulation at UVU for a mass casualty event. This would have been during the summer, just to be clear. And they used crisis actors.
UVU hosted a realistic bomb simulation with first responders, helicopters going to hospitals, people in theater makeup acting and pretending to be bleeding and dying, being transported to a hospital. I mean, totally nutty and not common.
The article tells us: Police cars, fire crews, SWAT units, ambulances, and a life-flight helicopter flocked to Utah Valley University on Tuesday, but it was just a drill. University officials gave notice that a bomb simulation was going to take place at the campus at the UCCU Center on June 17th from 10:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. Officials said there would be 50 people with theater makeup and fake injuries to enhance the realism of the simulation. First responders and officials from nearly 20 agencies, units, and departments all participated in this drill. These included resources from the county, state, university, and healthcare institutions. The drill included real-life helicopters evacuating fake victims with fake blood on them to real hospitals.
And I want you to take a look at all of the agencies — federal and local, plus hospitals — which were involved. You've got explosive ordnance disposal, special weapons and tactics, healthcare hospitals in American Fork as well as in Spanish Fork. Cyber Security Infrastructure and Security Agency — okay, why? Civilian support teams, Utah Department of Emergency Management, UVU Police Department, Utah Fire and Rescue Academy Emergency Management. How much did this cost?
And I do want to say, as a rational aside: why would you ever need to use crisis actors to train? That's actually not how doctors and surgeons and emergency personnel are trained, because people coming up in those fields don't need people in theater makeup. They need real patients and they need to learn how to treat those real patients via residency programs, working under doctors and paramedics. If it's going to be a life-flight helicopter evacuating people, they need real training, not fake kinds. And I want you to know that we researched this, because I was like, I've never heard of this. You all have heard of drills — you obviously know that drills take place in schools from the time you were in kindergarten. Fire drills. Now it's been updated to shooting drills. But with theater involved at this level, including the feds, it's exceedingly rare. We found about four universities in the last five years that have done this.
Again, I've got to say this just to say it: it makes me wonder what Tricky Terrell was doing on June 17th. Ah, Tricky Terrell. There he is again. What were you doing on June 17th, 2025? Charlie is dead. Hops down, grabs SD cards. But I digress. Back to UVU.
The point I'm making is that after learning this information about the feds using the admissions lot and about fake acting scenarios, I was wondering if anything interesting happened in that particular lot on the morning of September 10th. I'm a nosy person. I like to know things.
Just to recap: we know that Tyler Robinson is first seen at 8:07 a.m. walking in the neighborhood — he was captured on TMZ's footage. Oddly, though, I'd like to draw your attention to the fact that they didn't discuss that footage at all during the preliminary hearing, and it was not included in their Tyler Robinson sizzle reel. That footage just never made it in. But I was wondering: what about earlier? Because it would be a very convenient lot to park in if you needed to head to the amphitheater for any reason.
I'm going to show you this on a map — which exact lot we're talking about. Again, it seems like all the students refer to this as the admin lot, but it's technically considered the admissions lot because it's right next to the Woodbury building, which is where the admissions office is located.
And sure enough, you guys — you're not going to believe this. I was able to determine that on the morning of September 10th, a gray Dodge Challenger pulled up at 8:00 in the morning into the admissions lot. And even more strange perhaps is that it appears to be being trailed by a black SUV.
So I want you to take a look at this never-before-seen footage from September 10th. There is our Dodge Challenger pulling into the lot. And here is our black SUV behind it. It's going to park further up.
First, I would like to show you who gets out of that Challenger, because you're probably curious and your rational mind is thinking, "Hey, maybe it's a teacher or something. They're calling it the admin lot — maybe it's someone who had a meeting at admissions." If it's a teacher, it's got to be a young white male teacher carrying a backpack. I want you to take a look at the individual who gets out of that Challenger. Rather, to be a pretty tall person is what I would say. Widescreen — single white male, appears to me to be wearing jeans, a backpack, and a hat. And this person walks off.
Now, this is going to be very grainy, but I'm going to show you a still of who it is that got out of the SUV as well. We think that this is a Chevy Tahoe. You can obviously discern that this person is tall. This person is wearing shorts — it looks to me to be athletic shorts with a short-sleeve t-shirt, maybe gray, lighter for sure. And yeah, I'm allowed to just infer whatever I want. Obviously a stockier build.
But I also want to show you guys this, because as we all know, I am held to a much higher standard than the prosecution. I want to make sure I show you a fuller video of them both getting out of their cars at the same time, so people can't say I'm lying or that I chopped things up. And now look at the full screen of them both getting out at the same time. We're going to let this play out just so you guys have it. And again, reminding you that this is happening at 8:00 a.m.
I want to note that to me, again, that looks like a pretty tall person. I would say both of these individuals are quite tall.
Now, if you're a rational thinker, you might be saying, "Hey, look, maybe that SUV and the Challenger just happened to pull in at the same time." And you know what I would say back to you? I'd say, "Maybe." Certainly possible. But you should also know that they also left at the exact same time — within a minute of one another, they pulled out. So I'm going to show you that as well, because I just think: why not share everything.
Here is our single white male walking back to the Challenger, now with the school day in full swing, much fuller lot. This is at around 9:50 a.m. So these two individuals had been on campus for about two hours, a little under two hours. Walking back. I'll just let that play out. You never know what someone might see — someone might see it and go, "Hey, that's me." We did also note that you have some people going toward some paid parking for motorcycles on the side there. Maybe they saw something. Maybe they want to email me.
And here for good measure is our SUV departing, pulling out of that spot.
Plotting the new footage into the official timeline
And here's what I have to tell you. That Dodge Challenger gets especially interesting when you plot it into our official timeline. Take a look. In blue, we're going to have just this admissions lot Dodge Challenger.
So we've got that at about 8:00 — pulls into UVU admissions lot, followed by a black SUV. At 8:00 a.m., we see that the tall person in jeans, hat, and backpack gets out of that gray Dodge Challenger that just parked in the admissions lot and walks towards campus at the same time as the individual driving the black SUV, who we have observed to be a tall white male or light-complexioned male in athletic shorts.
Now, what's interesting is that at 8:07 a.m. — and I'm referring to this as expunged footage because I find it very strange that they did not speak about this footage and they did not include it in their Tyler Robinson sizzle reel — this was what we were informed by TMZ: they had footage at 8:07 that showed Tyler Robinson wearing a maroon shirt and shorts walking through the neighborhood just outside of university grounds.
Then we have at 8:23, the neighborhood footage catches Tyler Robinson's Dodge Challenger driving past their house. At 8:29, that Dodge Challenger enters the parking structure at UVU. At 8:43, we've got a maroon-shirted person with white legs emerging from that garage and beginning to walk on campus. And then for pretty much the same duration as our other Challenger, this person is staying on campus. So this is our maroon Challenger, as I'm going to refer to it, versus our blue Challenger — they're kind of mimicking each other's time on campus.
We're told that up until 9:24 a.m., Tyler Robinson is walking around UVU campus in his maroon shirt outfit. He's seen visiting areas such as a wooded area near a rifle that's later recovered on site. This is also the time frame where he goes up to a TPUSA employee and speaks to them. Then we have 9:00 a.m. — I'm just putting this here because that's when Denn Flood, Brian Harpole, and the whole security team minus Chris arrives on site at UVU.
At 9:24, Tyler Robinson is on foot descending the stairs in that parking structure because he's going to return to his Dodge Challenger. And at 9:33, we're told that Tyler's Dodge Challenger leaves the UVU parking structure. But hey, guess what — same time that this new gray Dodge Challenger pulls out of the admissions lot, that black SUV leaves the lot. So they're all leaving around the same time.
Then we're told that neighborhood cameras catch Tyler Robinson walking in a maroon shirt, and then we've got this break and we're not told where the Dodge Challenger is. Only that we know that at 10:09 a.m. Tyler Robinson returns to campus — he's going to walk through the tunnel, get to the parking structure, go to the Chick-fil-A, the Sorenson Center, purchase food, sit, eat. He doesn't park in the parking garage that time. And then we're told he leaves campus. Again, we don't know where that Dodge Challenger is. And then he's going to come back — still in a maroon shirt — just before 11:00 a.m.
So the problem you have here is: if the gray Dodge Challenger goes off campus and another gray Dodge Challenger goes off campus, how do you know who's who? How are they doing this off of Converse sneakers? What does it mean?
Well, potentially nothing. It could just be two random people who had a meeting that morning, maybe with admissions, that we're seeing in that lot. Maybe they had a class and they decided to park close by. Maybe they were teaching a class. What are we looking at in this footage? It could literally be nothing.
But if I were a juror, it would mean that I would not be moved beyond a reasonable doubt. The Dodge Challenger campus narrative is not solid, because we can now definitively assert that there was another Dodge Challenger on and around campus on that morning. How do we know it wasn't that person who parked off campus, got changed into some Converses, changed his entire outfit, and then came back on campus? How do we know? Some people noted that that person looks taller than Tyler Robinson — the person we see wearing the black shirt with an American flag. How do we know that's not that person? We can't just go off of Converse sneakers, can we?
What it means is that if I'm Tyler Robinson's defense lawyer and I'm working this case, I would need that person identified. I would need to consult with parking and figure out who parked that Dodge Challenger at that time, just as part of the regular investigation. Both of these cars now become critical.
And it sure is interesting that Baron Coleman has been covering the fact that he believes there was an early morning meeting before everything took place — an early morning meeting involving multiple people that potentially took place. I think it's a theory that should be explored. We don't know for sure, but we just dropped more evidence so that we can think.
I'll tell you what it definitely does mean, though. What it definitely means is that if you're Candace Owens and you have a tips line, you'd like to hear from the owner of this Dodge Challenger. If this is you — if you were just walking up, maybe it's you in the SUV that morning — please email us at moretips@candaceowens.com. It's a thread that we would like to pull in this lot, given what we have been told about this lot from students at UVU who do believe that something very suspicious took place.
TPUSA gaslighting parents and students at Nampa Christian School
We'll be right back after a break wherein I'm going to have to show you that Turning Point USA is now gaslighting middle schoolers about what they lived through at Nampa Christian School, where Erika Kirk spoke recently.
Candace Owens: There's something that I genuinely don't understand, and it's people that lie pathologically. I just don't know what the point is of the pathological lie if it's not necessary.
Perfect example, case in point: Erika does this event in Idaho — a Club America event. They then publish it onto X and promote it as though this was a tremendously successful Club America event. The implication is that we should infer 500-plus students attended a Club America event today in Idaho, fired up. It reads: 500 outstanding high school students attended the TPUSA Club America tour stop. Okay, that makes it sound like these high school students were willfully there and that they were high school students in general — 500 of them. None of that is true. It misrepresents things to the public as though Turning Point USA is expanding in some way. Like, this is a part of the mission. This is something that you present to donors: "Look, we had 500 students that showed up to this event. That's amazing."
So I simply say: this is not accurate, because you just should not be allowed to misrepresent things, especially when you are now dealing with minor children, minor students. I just mentioned that it was actually a mandated assembly, and here come Blake Neff and Andrew Kolvet doing the absolute most on X, presenting to the public like this was a successful event and that I'm lying.
When I countered that they were misrepresenting things, Blake called me a liar. He actually wrote this on X. He shared a grandmother's tweet and he wrote: "In a shocking development, everything Candace said about yesterday's event in Idaho was full of lies and distortions. Her agenda is highly transparent and people should stop falling for it." And then he shares this tweet from a grandmother — Idaho Heartland Grandma.
Grandma writes: "Candace Owens has truly lost her mind. Erika Kirk was at my grandchildren's private school today. Miss Owens seems to feel that the students had no choice and that the parents were not properly informed." Well, what I actually said was that they found out via a newsletter a couple of days early and it was mandated — it was an assembly.
Grandma goes on: "That is not true. I knew she was coming weeks in advance, and I am just a grandmother who lives hours away. My oldest granddaughter who attends sent her mom a long video after school about how awesome Erika was and how much she enjoyed it. Some people are not content unless they are stirring the pot."
Okay, quick question: why is she sending her mom a long video? Why not just call her? Just FaceTime your mom. Whatever.
Anyway, we have had a ton of parents email us since — and in particular three parents who underscored that students were told that they could not exit the gym during that event. And now, regarding Grandma's assertion that they were informed weeks in advance, parents have now sent us the actual newsletter because they're so confused as to how Blake and Andrew are going to gaslight what they actually lived through.
They sent us the actual newsletter which went out as we reported on Monday. They were informed on Monday. Erika then arrived on Thursday. Here is that newsletter and this is exactly what they were told, as we reported. It reads: "Thursday assembly — Thursday morning, our high school and middle school students at the Flamingo campus will have a special assembly featuring guest speaker Erika Kirk, who leads Turning Point Faith. She will be sharing with our students about faith and leadership and it is designed for students. Chapel attire is recommended for the day. The event is not being advertised or placed on social media by either NCS or TP Faith."
And this is exactly what I reported. Like I said, this was received on Monday regarding a Thursday event. Now, if Blake would like to present evidence to the contrary, we are happy to update our reporting, but they're going to have to do a little better than an unhinged granny who posts about bombing innocent Palestinians in Gaza.
People then started going through Grandma's tweets and it got a little aggressive. Very pro-Israel. She wrote this once: "They are gaslighting Israel. Bomb the crap out of Gaza while you wait for the release of the innocent. Do not pause for one second while they mess with your emotions." She also tweeted: "The last time I checked, Israel was a sovereign nation. The sovereign borders were invaded and Jewish blood was shed on Jewish soil. Israel alone knows when it has finished eradicating the invading swine." I mean, this is like Randy Fine. Another one she authored in response to someone talking about the ceasefire: "I don't think it's going to matter. They'll wait a few days, regroup, and start firing missiles that will break the ceasefire, and then Israel will have all just cause to blast them into eternity."
Well, hopefully Grandma can find time to present positive evidence. We need positive evidence, Blakey. That's your rule, not ours. We're going to need to see an email or some other form of communication that predates the Monday newsletter, because we presented it. You have to ask Grandma to secure one as well.
Reading the parent email in full
And I want to tell you that we received many more emails since. I wasn't planning on making this a long story — I just don't like the idea of gaslighting middle schoolers. I want to share some other facts that we have since learned about this event.
One parent — I'm sharing their email because I liked the tone of it. I liked that we were emailed by a parent who went through great lengths to make it clear that they are very happy at the school, they've had a very long relationship at the school, and they also wanted to be very careful to only supply us with facts without any additional narrative as to how this thing came together. Her email contained the following bullets. I'm going to read it to you verbatim.
She wrote: Parents were notified in the Monday newsletter that Erika Kirk was coming on Thursday. The communication that parents received described this as "designed for students." The event was not being advertised or placed on social media by either NCS or TP Faith. When parents specifically contacted administration and asked if they could attend, they were denied permission to attend. No permission slips were sent home or signed. The assembly included both middle school and high school students.
That fact-checks true, because there are only about 250 high school students — so if they had 500-plus students, it's because they combined the middle school with the high school.
She continues: Students were not formally offered an option to opt out. Do you hear that, Andrew? You said I was lying about that. A ton of parents have emailed us since. They were not formally offered any option to opt out. Parents could independently choose to excuse their children, which is what some parents did.
I would like to interject here and add that we learned that students who were pulled out were going to be given an absence, and some parents could not afford for their kids to be given an absence because their kids play sports — they need to maintain attendance. It's a penalty for not attending the assembly. Of course, where there is a will there is a way, but this was a mandatory assembly.
She continues: This took place during regular school hours as a school assembly. Students did not individually sign up or choose to attend. Parents were not given information beforehand about the security protocols for the event. I also wish to clarify something that could easily be used to dispute the statement that parents were not allowed to attend, because there were pictures posted after the event that showed some parents were present. From my understanding, those parents were there because their children were participating or speaking during the event. I can't personally verify that this was the reason every parent pictured was allowed in, but that is my understanding. What I can say is that parents who asked the administration if they could attend were told no. The general parent body was never told there was a way to attend or that certain parents would be permitted inside. We only discovered afterward through pictures being posted that some parents were present. The gym doors were locked during the assembly. Student questions were screened beforehand. My understanding is that TPUSA contacted Nampa Christian about coming to the school. This was not an event that was initiated or organized by the students. TPUSA publicly described the event as "500-plus high school students attending Club America." That was not an accurate description. The assembly included middle school students, so there were not 500-plus high school students in attendance. More importantly, these were not 500-plus students who independently chose or signed up to attend a Club America event. They were students attending a school assembly during regular school hours. Andrew Kolvet stated that only three students opted out. I personally know of more than three students who did not attend the assembly. I cannot tell you how he arrived at the number three or exactly what he was counting, but I know for a fact that more than three students did not attend.
She goes on: I am not suggesting that students were physically trapped inside with no ability to leave under any circumstances. I have no reason to believe that a student who needed to use the restroom or had another legitimate reason to leave would not have been allowed out. I am sure there was some type of protocol in place.
I'm going to interject here and offer back that we received two separate emails from parents saying that their children were refused when they asked to use the bathroom. I have those emails. Two parents emailed and that's why they were upset — because their children were refused permission to use the bathroom because of security protocols.
This person, however, goes on: But the doors were indeed locked. And as a parent, that raises questions for me. If bringing a particular speaker or organization onto a school campus requires students to be behind locked doors during the presentation, at what point should the administration ask whether that is the appropriate environment for middle and high school students during a required school assembly? This also makes me question Turning Point USA and their care for the safety of children. Perhaps locking the doors was entirely intended as a security measure to protect the students. But if that level of security was considered necessary, I believe parents should have been informed beforehand and given a meaningful choice regarding their child's participation.
Another piece of context that I think matters is that Nampa Christian has historically welcomed parents to assemblies. In my experience over the past ten-plus years, we have never previously been told that we could not attend one. The school involved a politically controversial public figure and advocacy organization, included middle school students, occurred during the regular school day, required no parental permission, gave parents only three days' notice, did not offer students a clearly communicated opt-out option, denied parents who requested permission to attend, and involved security procedures that were not explained to parents beforehand. In my opinion, this should have been an optional after-school or evening event. Families who wanted their children to hear Erika could have signed up and attended. Families who did not want their children participating could simply have chosen not to.
I felt it was important to read that in its entirety because I am just amazed at the lengths to which Turning Point USA will go to gaslight people about something that never needed to go this far. You could have simply said in a tweet, showed a picture, and said, "We are so grateful that Erika was given the opportunity to speak in front of students today in Nampa, Idaho. We hope that these students will be encouraged after hearing her message to sign up for our high school chapter here and get started with Club America. Thank you for the opportunity." That's all you had to say. That's it. No one would have cared.
It's the amount of lies they tell — the little lies they tell — and the force and the anger of how they tell them. The anger of Blake calling me a liar, knowing fully well that I was telling the truth, trying to find a random loophole: "Oh, some parents did call. They had to take extreme measures to get their kids out. So therefore it wasn't mandatory." Like, yes, it was. It was a mandatory event and some parents had to go through extremes to get their kids taken out. Why lie? And do they understand that this is the reason why nobody believes them about anything? Because they lie about things that don't even need to be lied about. So why would we accept anything Turning Point USA is telling us about September 10th and all of the random mysteries and holes and things that don't make sense, when they lie about the small stuff? If you lie about the small stuff, you'll definitely lie about the bigger stuff.
They're petty liars. And again, this seems especially egregious because they're gaslighting middle school kids. Just so you guys who are not from America understand — middle school in the United States, we're talking about the ages of 11 to 13. Okay? So imagine you send your 11-year-old, they're told that they can't use the bathroom, they sit through this thing that they don't want to sit through. And now you have Blake Neff and Andrew Kolvet being like, "They loved it. They wanted to be there. They could have opted out." They're putting up a picture saying 500-plus students were excited about this. There's an element of this that's really cruel. And they shouldn't do it.
And I just wanted to really cover that story extensively because I hate when people tell me that I am a liar when I don't lie. I follow the facts. I will make corrections. Look, if Grandma on X wants to drop an email that was released earlier and show the world that all of these parents in our tips box telling matching stories are lying, then I will concede. But Grandma's going to have to do it. Grandma's going to have to step up to the plate. A little genocidal, Grandma. The language got a little genocidal there when dealing with the response for the Palestinians — but to be expected when we're dealing with TPUSA 2.0. They will partner with anyone absent any facts.
Andrew Kolvet, you're the official spokesperson. You could get to the bottom of whether or not I'm telling the truth about when that newsletter went out. So please do that.
Top comments and viewer responses
Candace Owens: Top comments from last episode. Northern Nessa writes: "Whenever Erika says 'my Charlie,' all I hear is 'my precious.'"
Oh, I forgot — we'll have to show you guys tomorrow the video that Where Forbidden dropped, which was the Lord of the Rings-themed video that we requested. Where Forbidden actually created one and it is hilarious. Maybe they can pull it in fast enough.
The Lord of the Rings video plays:
Video: "My precious. He trusted me. He told me everything. Give me the microphone, Blake."
"No. Charlie would have wanted his best friend to have it."
"You were his employee."
"Friend? Do either of you have positive evidence that microphone belongs to you?"
"Pickles."
"I think we all know who Charlie was."
"Enough. I vowed to pick up the bloodstick and microphone and continue Charlie's mission. Now hand it over."
Candace Owens: Just perfect. Just perfect. They're calling me Cand the White — before that, I was Cand the Grey. "You shall not pass," for my Lord of the Rings fans.
You should follow Where Forbidden — that is just excellent work. This person is obviously just amazing and every video he drops is funnier than the last. I don't know how it's possible. He is very creative. Amazing at @WhereForbidden on X. I think it's also Where Forbidden over on Instagram and he calls it Forbidden HQ. I love that.
The other top comment from Thursday's episode, from Bodily Messianic: "After the text thread between Erika and that 15-year-old female, she should not be allowed inside of any school with minors."
I agree with you. If my child was going to school and Erika Kirk was speaking, I would be one of those people jumping through hoops to make sure that my child was not present, and I would be questioning the school altogether, because these lingering questions matter. And like I said, there might be sensible answers for it, but when somebody says that they have people on record asserting that you worked at modeling apartments and at multiple meetings at a place where we know Jeffrey Epstein frequented, I think you should respond to that — given the Romanian Angels stuff and a lot of stuff that's in the air. Respond to that thoroughly. Maybe you're going to debunk it, but to not respond to it feels a little weird to me. I would definitely respond to it, but maybe that's just me.
Comments from today's episode
Candace Owens: Comments from today's episode. Seven Sheets writes: "I still grieve for Charlie. We all grieve differently, but I find it so hard to see the people closest to him be so contrary and controlling to what that man built from the ground up. They wish they could all have his last name. Keep going. The truth will be."
That's the thing that is the most stunning — people who did not know Charlie around the world grieved harder. And people who did not know Charlie focused themselves on this investigation for longer than the people that were the closest to him. They just accepted the narrative, did not do any digging, have not offered anything that they could offer that would have nothing to do with the trial. They could supply things that would make the public feel better about who is in control of the company. And it's almost like they have just been promoting filth. They're working with filth. They're promoting filth. And their response has been nothing but anger as opposed to trying to provide clarity to various things, and it makes them look more suspicious. It does. It just does in the public conscience.
Zamit writes: "What would Charlie Kirk have said about your Candace Owens Time magazine cover in April? Perhaps: 'How inescapably small you must feel. Pitiful. Certainly not making America great again.' And thank you, Ben Shapiro. I did not know Candace in 2024. I would have been missing out on the pleasure of her wit and her intellect had it not been for you. Sincerely yours."
Thank you so much for saying that. Yeah, a lot of stuff changed. I hate to assign an empty platitude here, but it is often said that everything happens for a reason, and I agree with that. In retrospect, exactly the way that the firing happened had to happen in that exact manner, for that exact cause, for that exact reason. The public was not receptive to it, and it allowed me to reintroduce myself on my own terms and really made me realize that you should let go of what doesn't work for you, especially when they start demanding that you agree with things that don't make sense. Genocide is always wrong. Of course it's always wrong. It's so crazy to say that it's not always wrong, or to try to do a special carve-out for Israel. And I'm grateful for this journey. That's the simplest way to put it.
And Matt Hatter writes: "Imagine if this would have occurred with other propaganda — Muslim, trans, etc. Any push for any agenda that our children cannot easily opt out of should be highly criticized and investigated, even if they're hiding behind Christianity."
And I agree with that. It is a veneer. The TPUSA Faith thing is a veneer. We've talked about the pastors that are involved. We've talked about their history. We've talked about the history of the Calvary Church. There just seems to be a lot there. This theme of trafficking that keeps coming up — I've had to use my platform to speak about it. And it's particularly because they refuse to provide answers where they can. Like, if you're going to partner with Greg Laurie and they're going through these lawsuits about trafficking Romanian children, you owe the public a response to that. You certainly owe the parents an answer if you're the school administrator as to why you're partnering with this organization that claims to represent faith and not giving parents an opt-out option if they're uncomfortable. That's what I would say if I was spending my money and my children were attending that school.
And I do want to also say to the person who researched and found that there is a very big donor to that school who also donates to Turning Point USA — fantastic work. I'm choosing not to name that donor, but there is a financial connection there. It could be coincidental. I'm wondering what was behind that push. The person who wrote that very even-keeled email did not explore that possibility — just said that this was something that Turning Point put together. It could be deeper than that. The reason why they may have done things they never did before could most likely be because of some financial incentive in the background. Otherwise, you're a school — why would you want to do that? Why would you want to go against what you've done in the past in terms of allowing parents to attend the assembly? That feels to me like there could potentially be some powerful strings in the background. But I'm not stating that factually. I'm just giving my opinion and my assessment as a parent. I would be very upset, and that is why these parents are emailing me. I'm not making up the emails.
Solid Oak writes: "By keeping the case alive and thriving, you are keeping them alive as well. Once a cover-up starts to lose momentum and has faded from public memory, that is typically when those involved start to mysteriously disappear."
I agree with you. I think that is why they wanted us to move on from the narrative as soon as Erika said, "I forgive him." And that is why they are now demonstrating such anger and frustration and partnering with people to try to convince the masses that they shouldn't believe their own eyes.
UFO writes: "Have you seen Erika Kirk's new white kicks sneakers with Charlie's picture on her shoes? It is so bizarre. Is this a grift? Is this betrayal?"
I have. I saw this trending. We did not cover this. I do want to assert that it is an old image — it's when she is interviewing Karoline Leavitt. Indeed, the internet has just recently uncovered that Erika is wearing Air Force Charlies. These are Air Force Ones and Charlie is on them, pictured on the last day of his life. People were like, "What is the meaning of this?" I just genuinely think that she is a bit tacky. I don't think that there's any dark meaning here. I think somebody probably gifted her those sneakers and she was like, "These are cool." Money does not buy you class. I don't find her to be an emblem of class. Parking aside the role that I think she has played in sort of destroying what Charlie Kirk believed in at the helm of his company — just as an individual, that tracks with me. If you just kind of go back and look at the history of Erika Kirk, I feel like that is her style. It's exceedingly tacky and it is not something that I would ever do, and I do think it's disrespectful. But I would also say that I don't think that disrespect was even her intent. I think she was just like, "These are dope Air Force Charlies." But yeah, very, very, very crass in my view.
Chicago Conservative writes: "Candace, in your ode to Charlie, you said that your priest told you he is most likely in purgatory. Why would someone as devoted to Christ as Charlie be in purgatory? If true, there is no hope for the rest of us."
The Catholic belief — Charlie died, he was not a Catholic — would be that he is in purgatory. That does not mean that you do not move on from purgatory. It's a process of cleansing. And I want to be honest with you: outside of Catholicism, I sensed — as I was telling you the dreams that I was having — it was almost paralyzing. I sensed he was closer in a way. Again, I'm just telling you how I felt. I am not giving you Catholic instruction, and for further questions you should always consult a priest. We do believe in the authority of the church.
But that was what he said to me the day after. He was one of about four people that I spoke to in those days after. And I spoke to him about how vivid the dreams were that I was having. And I did sense that Charlie was closer. And then as time went on — we give prayers, you can offer up masses — I prayed for Charlie to move on. It was a daily prayer. I did feel, as I expressed, that I was being haunted. It was a lot to go through.
And I am not someone that is ashamed to discuss my dreams. And I think the more that we have gotten along in this, the more that dream has fact-checked true — the dream of the betrayal. How crazy. At the time that I had that dream, I did not suspect Andrew Kolvet. I thought he was a good character, a good person. And I have been so wrong on that. And now it kind of makes sense of why they freaked out about me sharing the dream. I mean, they still to this day go on about it — "She just goes on dreams." I'm like, it's been a year. I've shared one dream. Are you guys okay? They crashed out because there was an undercurrent of truth that I think the dream scared them. And it scared me and it scared them, but for different reasons.
I wasn't — I knew the Israel stuff was weird, but the location of that dream, me and Charlie being in Israel where we were sitting once before, and him telling me that he was betrayed, me not being able to hear the names, but the only person that I could make out was Andrew Kolvet. Yeah. And to this day, the press hits on that. "Dreams, dreams, dreams. She said she had a dream. This is so silly. All she does is have dreams." Yeah. Somebody was triggered by that dream. A lot of people, I think, were triggered by that dream. And it's also very strange for Christians to mock dreams. Like, have you read your Bible? Are you good? Yeah, I had a dream and it was coded. And I'll leave it at that.
Overarching Investigative Serve writes: "I am a private investigator. Approximately 20 days ago, I emailed you a tip regarding the Dodge Challenger. Please locate that message. It suggests additional possibilities worth reviewing."
Oh, I think I missed that. Do you mind please resending that to moretips@candaceowens.com? That would be very helpful. Thank you.