Highlights From the Candace Owens vs Andrew Wilson Debate On the Assassination of Charlie Kirk

Hotair ^ | 08/19/2026 | John Sexton

[SeekAndFind]

Last Friday, Candace Owens and Andrew Wilson held a much hyped debate over the death of Charlie Kirk. As you probably know, Owens has been on a months-long campaign to smear everyone who was close to Kirk and insinuate some or all of them were somehow complicit in his assassination. Andrew Wilson has basically made his name online as a debater and his goal was to press Owens to offer some evidence to back up her claims.

I was out of town last Friday so I didn't see any of it and, as I think everyone expected, it doesn't seem to have changed many minds. The people who think Candace Owens is a fraud still think that and the people who think she's a genius still think that as well.

I'm definitely in the former camp and the clips I've seen seem to support the idea that she never did come up with anything at all to justify any of her claims beyond her intuition that something wasn't right. Here's Candace rambling at length about her intuition.

Candace Owens' entire case is UNKNOWNS and VIBES/FEELINGS which Andrew Wilson is easily picking apart. pic.twitter.com/mycYTKXsYu— Nathan Livingstone (MilkBarTV) (@TheMilkBarTV) August 14, 2026

And the thrust of Wilson's counter-argument is that intuition isn't enough. In the clip above Owens calls it step one, which is fine. The problem is she never gets to any step two. There's never anything solid to back up her sense that something is off. Wilson tried to make that point here. It's fine to say, this doesn't feel right, but she's gone way, way beyond that to saying things like Tyler Robinson is a patsy, Israel and France are involved, Erika Kirk is guilty of something etc. She's not just saying something feels off and I'm going to wait to see all the evidence at trial. She's saying the case against Robinson is a sham and part of some conspiracy.

Andrew Wilson very eloquently points out to Candace Owens that no one has ever had a problem with people questioning or having doubts surrounding the Tyler Robinson case.

The problem is when people inject baseless outside conspiracy theories that are never subjected to the same level of scrutiny:

“That’s never what the problem is. The problem is when you make claims outside of, ‘Well, wait a second, I’m just questioning evidence here. I’m just questioning what the state’s case is here. I’m just asking questions.’

It’s when you make claims outside of that. It’s when you claim that there’s good evidence or good standards you should believe. Because... and then it turns out that it’s all nonsense. Or it’s wackadoo stuff. And it makes no sense.”

Which, of course goes over Candace's head.

pic.twitter.com/Vm0AK7lXnW— Nathan Livingstone (MilkBarTV) (@TheMilkBarTV) August 14, 2026

Not surprisingly, the more specific Wilson gets with his questions, the more tap dancing Owens has to do. This clip is extremely revealing because it's very clear that a) Owens has nothing to back up her claims and b) she's basically admitting that this is just her opinion and therefore she doesn't need facts.

🚨Candace Owens COMPLETELY COLLAPSES when Andrew Wilson asks her to provide evidence for her claim that Israel and France were involved in Charlie Kirk’s assassination. pic.twitter.com/A64VCMs44O— Nathan Livingstone (MilkBarTV) (@TheMilkBarTV) August 14, 2026

The other thing that Owens did several times during the debate was mislead people about her own positions. Compare what she's been saying on her own show to what she said on the same topics during the debate. And notice that at the very end of this she leaves herself an escape hatch, saying she could do an about face and decide Tyler Robinson is guilty after all.

Watch Candace Owens' SHOW vs. DEBATE: The contradictions, goalpost moves, and gaslighting.

As one claim after another FALLS APART.

Feat. @paleochristcon pic.twitter.com/Q1BIXttVeE— Nathan Livingstone (MilkBarTV) (@TheMilkBarTV) August 17, 2026

Like I said, none of the Candace fans seem bothered by any of this. I haven't seen anyone out there suddenly deciding she's a con artist. But I think it's fair to say that if you weren't already a devoted fan she offered absolutely nothing that would convince you there's more to this than her desire to turn Kirk's death into a paycheck.

Finally, at the beginning of the debate Andrew Wilson read a text message which he said hadn't been revealed before. This one was sent from Kirk to his team about security at the event the day before the shooting. He allegedly said, "Remind them that they are there for one person’s security. Because I’m somewhat worried the left is trying to kill me."

BREAKING: The Candace Owens vs. Andrew Wilson debate opens with Wilson reading, for the first time, a text from Charlie Kirk to his security team, who were communicating with law enforcement on Sept. 9. Kirk was clearly concerned about threats from “THE LEFT”:

“Remind them that they are there for one person’s security. Because I’m somewhat worried the left is trying to kill me.”

pic.twitter.com/LKarRoGtR3— Nathan Livingstone (MilkBarTV) (@TheMilkBarTV) August 14, 2026

I haven't seen the text but if it bears out, that's pretty remarkable. 

[GMThrust]

I have never listened to one video or interview...that Candace has ever done. I watched this “debate” and came away with me never wanting to listen to or watch anything from her, ever. I heard her for the first time and kept thinking, this woman is a hard core leftist. She moved the goal posts so many times, she was condescending, snarky, talked over Wilson (but of course got pissed when he did it to her), talked a thousand miles per hour and contradicted herself multiple times. It was maddening. She does not sound like she has a stable mental foundation.

[Organic Panic]

She is riding her “magic conservative negro” persona way past its due date. Anyone who looked saw what a phony she was during the conservative chic fad.

[fr_freak]

I have watched most of Owens’s videos on the Charlie Kirk murder, and I had the opposite impression. The guy, Wilson, was a snarky dirtbag. I suppose it helps to get a proper perspective if you know what Owens has been really saying, and what evidence she has provided, in order to know how Wilson was deliberately misrepresenting it.

She is, however, quite capable of sarcasm and a little snark. But that Wilson guy was far worse. And if you’ve ever seen his little podcast (I’ve only seen snippets), his whole shtick is having young, stupid women on and literally calling them whores.

[LowOiL]

She is riding her “magic conservative negro” persona way past its due date.

Yep !

When proven wrong, Candace just moves to the next conspiracy.. Owens moved on a few months ago from the French leader's wife (Brigitte) "is a guy" only after Macron had to disgrace herself to a doctor just to prove sharp tongued Owens wrong. I actually felt bad for the leftist frog having to prove an obvious rumor-monger incorrect.

[Kenny Bania]

“Entertainment” for retards. Both of them are morons.

[GMThrust]

I should have mentioned that I have never seen him as well, but didn’t get the same feeling from him. She never did get to the evidence as to why she thought Tyler R is a patsy. But to say there is a zero % chance that Tyler R did it, come on. To have the debate about this during the pre-trial stuff was pointless. She kept talking about how the prosecutions case is weak. Newsflash Candice, they are only going to present what they need to, to get this to trial. Then all the hard evidence comes out.

[chris haney]

Typical garbage

[chris haney]

TROLL

[srmanuel]

I never have understood how the Charlie Kirk conspiracies have begun or have survived this long.

Why would a foreign country want Charlie Kirk dead, makes no sense to me, he was not that big, powerful or influential to really care about for a foreign country to have him killed and risk a potential act of war on an American citizen.

Why is the simple explanation of a crazed trans lunatic crossed the line and killed Charlie Kirk not accepted by a lot of people. It’s pretty obvious that both trans people and those who are connected to Trans people suffer from some type of mental instability.

A person suffering from mental instability about the trans movement, grabs a gun and kills someone who opposes the trans movement, the person suffering with a mental instability is constantly being told by the media that those opposing the trans movement are committing genocide against trans people, it’s only natural a few of them would go off the deep end and commit acts of violence, not some foreign government who feared the influence of Charlie Kirk and had him killed.

[21twelve]

All of the various conspiracy crap is to get clicks and make money. Some say that Candace and others are getting paid by foreign countries to spread rumors as well.

I think it has exploded since Covid. One, everyone using the internet more as they were told to, or too afraid to leave home. And two, seeing all of the crap they lied to us about covid, now the internet people are getting clicks on ANY sort of distrust of the government. “Hey, if they lied about Covid, they lied about us landing on the moon back in the 60’s, etc.” (Yes, Candace doesn’t think we landed on the moon.)

[fr_freak]

But to say there is a zero % chance that Tyler R did it, come on. To have the debate about this during the pre-trial stuff was pointless. She kept talking about how the prosecutions case is weak. Newsflash Candice, they are only going to present what they need to, to get this to trial. Then all the hard evidence comes out.

You've already admitted that you haven't seen any of her podcast on the subject, so if you're going to argue these points, you need to watch it first. Otherwise, you're just engaging in conjecture out of pure ignorance.

From what I've seen on FR, there are a lot of people here basing their opinion of Owens's position, not on anything substantial, but on whichever of their personal prejudices that she triggers. Judging a book by its cover, as they say. Since you've admitted you've never seen anything she's done, or that he's done, I'd have to say you seem to fall into this category.

[jobim]

“I have never listened to one video or interview...that Candace has ever done.”
GMThrust

“I should have mentioned that I have never seen him as well, but didn’t get the same feeling from him. She never did get to the evidence as to why she thought Tyler R is a patsy. But to say there is a zero % chance that Tyler R did it, come on.”
GMThrust

GMT reveals the level of discussion/argument so much in evidence in this neighborhood.
Who needs to have studied anything to have an opinion on it?

[fr_freak]

Why would a foreign country want Charlie Kirk dead, makes no sense to me, he was not that big, powerful or influential to really care about for a foreign country to have him killed and risk a potential act of war on an American citizen.

That couldn't be farther from the truth. Kirk was the head of a multi-million dollar organization with international ties. He also had close ties to President Trump to the extent that he could call Trump up on the phone pretty much anytime. By all accounts, Kirk advised Trump regularly. Now, imagine that a foreign power caught wind of the fact that Kirk was going to advise Trump on a course of action that would put that foreign power at a great disadvantage. Not too hard to figure out from there.

[jobim]

Precisely.

[DHerion]

A nut killed Charlie Kirk. Nuts kill people every day. Candace Owens is a goof ball, no different than Alex Jones.

[srmanuel]

When Charlie Kirk was killed, Trump had maybe 3 years remaining and he would be gone, after him there is a good chance a Democrat with real anti-Semites advising the next President.

I’ve seen no evidence that Charlie Kirk was an Anti-Semite who wanted to end our relationship with Israel, he like a lot of the MAGA movement wanted no part in the endless middle east wars of the last 20-25 years, which is a pretty mainstream opinion. Beside, Trump’s son-in-law is a Jew as is his closet advisor Steve Witkopf, both of whom have negotiated with all the Muslim countries in that area of the world.

Charlie Kirk’s impact was engaging with young voters and registering them as Republicans and leading a huge turn out the vote effort, his impact on actual foreign policy was minimal at best, nothing to warrant a foreign government killing him for it.

It is far easier to believe a crazed trans person fed endless stories that Charlie Kirk wanted trans people dead picked up a gun and killed Charlie Kirk versus some foreign government. Almost daily we see liberals enraged at something on the right, it’s a matter of time before they start killing people, Charlie Kirk was unfortunately one of the first, he hasn’t been the last and there will more in the future.

[srmanuel]

There is a lot of truth to what you have said, nearly everything today is a conspiracy, social media feeds on it, people are making huge sums of money on feeding conspiracies.

Are foreign governments paying some of these influencers, it’s certainly possible, I think the simple explanation is most of these people have figured out that a significant percentage of people are highly susceptible to propaganda and feed them endless conspiracies and monetize that on social media, I think most people would be shocked to learn what some social media influencers are making just from things like YouTube.

People like Joe Rogan have made perhaps hundreds of millions by doing a podcast and he’s reasonably mainstream, Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens are making millions just from social media I’m not sure what a foreign country could offer them that would make them do a 180-degree turn in their politics.

I think people like Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens have always been what they are now. The simple explanation is they gravitate toward what pays the most money and will say anything, right now they are in their sweet spot because this is what they actually believe and don’t have to fake it.

[fr_freak]

I don’t know why you posted all that stuff to me. You said that Charlie Kirk was an unimportant guy in the grand scheme of things, and I disputed that. Why would you bring up all of this “anti-semetism” stuff?

[srmanuel]

Just for the sake of discussion, most of the conspiracies I’ve heard about who killed Charlie Kirk is that somehow Israel was involved, if Israel was involved, I doubt they would kill someone who was 100% loyal to Israel, they would most likely kill an Anti-Semite who would want to destroy the country.