Original subtitles

All right, you guys, so a week before

Charlie lost his life, he expressed some concerns

about the finances at Turning Point USA.

In fact, he wanted to put together an entire department, a

little mini department to address

those concerns.

And we have evidence of that.

It is always the advice when

investigating any crime to "follow the money."

So let's do that just a little bit here.

Plus, there is a video that has gone absolutely viral.

I am sure you have seen it.

It was emailed to me many times where there

is a theory that is being floated that Charlie

was shot from the back.

Now, there are two aspects in that video

that we can debunk, and I want to do that.

And there's one aspect that we cannot debunk clearly.

I think this is a worldwide investigation,

so I want to assist wherever it is that I

can.

So welcome back to Candace.

There is a lot of leaking going on right

now, and I've been very clear that everything

in my soul has been screaming at me from

the very moment that I found out that Charlie

got shot, that this story is much bigger,

that there just was something much bigger

going on than what has thus far been presented to the public.

All of the wrong people are eulogizing him.

They're lying about small things, which I

don't like, because why lie about small things?

Only a guilty conscience of sorts lies about little things.

And there are a few points that we have

covered throughout the story that right away jumped

out at me as odd, first and foremost, of course.

Bibi Netanyahu over-inserting himself,

not even just on day one, minute one.

He tweeted before the president of the

United States that Charlie had lost his life.

That's weird.

It's very weird, and we should not forget

how weird that is, especially because when

he won multiple hits doing Fox News and Greta Van Cistern's

show, he lied about the contents

of a letter that Charlie Kirk had written him back in May.

What I also don't like are the people like

Josh Hammer and Seth Dillon, people that I

know who are very nasty and work behind the scenes.

I don't like that they have not yet been

honest or forthcoming about the pressure

that they and others were putting on Charlie Kirk.

That just strikes me as odd.

There's no reason to lie, no reason to pretend

that you weren't doing that, to try to massage

it and lie about it.

I believe that there are lies by

omission, and I view them both to be liars.

And of course, who could forget the

word length of Bill Ackman's reply?

I tell you guys about this weekend in the Hamptons.

I tell you about Bibi Net and Yahoo

calling Charlie Kirk and inviting him to Israel.

And Bill Ackman replies with an essay, college essay.

959 words, to be precise, was his response

to me speaking about that, where he himself

did not actually address my point about the

"intervention," which is how Charlie described

it himself, and my point about Bibi Net

and Yahoo and the offer to take turning point

to the next level financially.

No one wants to address those

points because I was being honest.

People thought that Charlie's ideas

were trending in the wrong direction.

And by the way, regarding that now infamous weekend, the

response videos that were made,

which seems like there was some sort of a

PR crisis going on, the response tweets that

were fashioned, they were sort of getting funny.

Xavier De Russo was there.

I had reached out to him.

He had, rather than answering me, messaged me to say I am

speaking out about that weekend.

He made a video where he formally addressed

the weekend and explained that, yes, Charlie,

and he uses the phrase "moral blackmail."

Charlie spoke about feeling morally blackmailed, but this was

done in more of a workshop setting,

essentially, like it was a debate club, and they were

strengthening their debates on the

topic of Israel.

We can take a listen to Xavier De Russo in his own words.

And then people are taking things out of

context because there was like an article, the hit

piece that came out, it talks about how Charlie raised up his

phone and had written on Twitter,

and he said something like, "Bibi

needs to resign," or something like that.

And he goes, "What would happen if I do this?"

There was discourse, and then there was one

woman who sat in the back who said, "If you

do that, you're indirectly going to empower Hamas."

And then Charlie was like, "So

you have to stop saying like that."

He was saying that when you are debating about

Israel, you need to stop doing it emotionally,

you need to do it logically and

factually, otherwise you lose the debate.

He said, "It is moral blackmail if you say

that somebody's saying that a politician is

bad that you're then empowering a terrorist organization."

Fair argument.

It was a fair argument, but it also was a

real argument, and you kind of removed the

names that were involved in this conversation.

Natasha Hausdorff was there, Seth Dillon was

there, and Seth Dillon was the one that was

applying pressure to him, and Seth Dillon and Josh Hammer.

Josh Hammer didn't jump on him in that moment.

We're not happy.

They were not happy with Charlie at the end

of this weekend in the Hamdons because again,

they saw which way the wind was traveling

in terms of his positions on Bibi Netanyahu

and Israel, and they were in fact being accusatory.

And again, you don't have to take

it in my words or Xavier's words.

I've always had a friendly relationship

with Xavier, but we should listen to Charlie's

own words, which we have played multiple

times of what happened the day after this

little weekend retreat where he vented to

Megyn Kelly his frustrations with him being

wrongly labeled anti-Semitic and how it was

actually pushing him away and it wasn't good

for Israel.

Then, and one of the big questions that we

discovered or that we asked and something

that we had discovered was that this weekend was kept

hush-hush, which is extraordinarily

unusual for a turning point event.

If you're going to fly your influencers

out, you want them to influence, obviously.

And Xavier offered this explanation for why

they didn't post about the weekend until they

were rumbled about the weekend.

Take a listen.

And then you have the people who are trying to

go and say that, oh, then why was the meeting

so secretive?

The photos were already on my Instagram.

The reason we didn't post that in

the real time was because of safety.

Do you know how many people would have

loved to come and slaughtered that whole hotel?

Feeling like Justin Bieber because it's not clocking for me.

I'm sorry.

So first off, you guys never

connected to Turning Point USA publicly.

The photos that you posted, if you posted

it after the event, I don't think that it's

because you were fearful that what just

being a conservative in the Hamptons was going to

get you slaughtered.

Like were there Hamas tunnels under the Hamptons?

That doesn't make sense.

That makes entirely no sense.

And we should call out how little sense that

makes, especially because one of the influencers

did post on August 6th that she was in the Hamptons.

Actually, Emily loves America.

Emily saves America.

Pardon me, said when she was fighting with

somebody about how little their engagement

ring was during this weekend.

How do you guys expect to have a house land in multiple kids?

Be for real.

Sorry, I'm MIA.

I'm in the Hamptons.

So are conservatives not allowed to be in the Hamptons?

Not getting slaughtered?

Is it specifically conservative influencers?

You said that it wasn't a perizreal event.

So I guess there's no Israel angle here,

which does, of course, there's tons of Zionists

in the Hamptons, the Lachman among them.

So I don't understand you couldn't post to you were the

Hamptons because you were going

to get killed.

How?

I need more information there because that's just silly.

And I also love the context of him

doing this on PragerU's platform.

I obviously worked for PragerU.

I know Marissa Strait.

This is I am looking at Marissa Strait

right there, right there, a little PR operation

to address the point without actually

addressing the points and to make it seem like it was

nothing.

And that's not the reality.

You know, Marissa has never always been

open about the fact that she worked for the IDF

intelligence.

And like I said, you could sense there was a

PR panic when people started speaking about

the weekend.

I told you guys the truth.

That's it.

Okay.

I like the fact that Charlie was literally

facing financial threats over his speech,

the thing that mattered most to him, right?

Fighting for free speech.

Even if you disagreed with somebody, you

know, you got to make sure that they have a right

to express their viewpoints.

And what happened to me a year earlier

seemed to be happening to him one year later.

Another thing that I really do not like

and it is bothering me and is eating at me is

the fact that turning point will not release the footage.

Okay.

I don't understand it.

The excuse that I have been handed for why

they won't release it makes no sense to me.

If you are under pressure, if people are starting to look at

you funny as an organization, if

they're thinking that whether rightfully or

wrongfully, if they are suspecting because

they see this footage of someone quickly

remove the SD cards that you guys had something to

do with the assassination of Charlie Kirk

and you quite literally have footage that

in theory should vindicate

yourself, why wouldn't you release it?

Think about that.

It's just in your own capacity.

If somebody is saying you are guilty of

anything, they're like, Candace, you are absolutely

guilty of breaking into my car.

And I'm like, I have a camera right here

that shows that I did not break into your car.

Would it make sense if I was like,

but I'm not going to release that.

I'm not going to release that because it's not right.

It's not right for me to really what it makes no sense.

I don't understand why they would not release this.

The idea that it's because well, the

feds are saying the feds cannot arrest you.

Last I checked, the feds cannot bring

charges against you for releasing footage that you

own.

And since when do we trust the feds?

Certainly Charlie didn't.

He didn't believe we were getting the truth

about the Epstein files and things of that

nature.

So I don't accept that.

That said, I also want to be clear that it

doesn't mean that every single person that

is continuing on in the organization is guilty of murder.

I mean, I think we want answers, but we shouldn't be like, you

know, this person is definitely

a murderer because they're not providing the answers.

You know, I've been speaking and I've been

seeing a lot of vitriol that's been thrown

at Andrew Colvett's way because he is doing press.

He is carrying on Charlie Kirk's show.

He was already seated on Charlie Kirk's show.

He was already there.

And I was being genuine when I

said he's under a lot of pressure.

There's no question.

He's a spokesperson for Turning Point USA

and he's grieving somebody that he knows and

who was a very close, if not one of his best friends.

He saw every day doing the Charlie Kirk show

and he still got to deal with the same donors

that Charlie was dealing with.

I mean, it's a lot going on, you know, and

until we have all the facts in front of us

until we actually see the footage, I think

we should be careful in just thinking that

everybody is guilty of something.

I want you guys to also, though, be

conscious of the lies that we are being told by the

federal government because that feels extremely guilty to me.

We haven't received any updates whatsoever

on the raid that took place of Lance's house

where Tyler Robinson was living at the time of this crime.

No update whatsoever on Lance.

You know, he just completely fell to the wayside.

So forget it.

Forget asking any questions about Lance.

And my instinct has always been that the

feds injected themselves immediately into

this case because they were staging a cover up.

And now I feel as though we can almost

establish that as a fact when I tell you something else

that happened here, my next point.

So as you know, I have been positively

obsessed with who killed Charlie Kirk because he was

my friend.

He was actually my friend.

Everyone else who could eulogize all they want.

Some of it felt a little cheap and fake and gay.

But for me, this is real.

So I had been hunting down all the videos,

all of the footage and wanted to go back to

Ground Zero as we did yesterday of the

initial videos that went viral on social media and

on X on the day that Charlie was assassinated.

And it occurred to me that I forgot about

one video, actually the only video that exists

of the shooter sprinting across the

rooftop a mere seconds after the shot was fired.

Now, you probably recall that video in the back of your mind.

You remember that video that was going

viral with him seen running across the roof.

Well, I'm about to show it to you in a much

clearer quality than you have ever seen it,

a higher quality than you have ever seen that video.

Remember before I show it to you to tee this

up, it is just a couple of seconds after the

sound of a shot rang out.

Let's watch this together.

It kind of and we're going to just cover that.

It kind of looks like he's got

something trailing behind him too.

Maybe that's the towel that we've been told about.

We can play that again as you watch this.

Now let me tell you how I tracked down this footage.

It took me all of two hours to track down

this footage to get the name of the person

who had filmed the footage and to from there

after messaging someone on Twitter, they said

I got the footage from this person.

This is the person that shot it

and he's willing to speak to you.

I get in touch with this individual.

Okay, very quickly.

It's all transpired in a couple of hours

and you will never guess what it is that he

told me.

He told me that neither the feds nor the

local police had ever reached out to him.

Never.

I'm sorry, what?

You have one of two people who have a

recording of the shooter at all, right?

At all.

And the feds were simply not interested as

they were excuting this manhunt of reaching

out to the individual who had

footage of him running across the roof.

How could that be?

Why?

Why would that be?

Somebody explained to me, make it make sense for me.

Maybe in the fog and the chaos.

Sure.

I pointed they go, hey, hmm, I see this

really grainy image that's gone viral on Twitter.

Maybe I should reach out to the person that

made it go viral and see if I can track down

that person so I can get clear data,

meaning the metadata that exists, which will tell

you the exact second that the person was running to make sure

it lines up with my federal timeline

that I must be creating.

If little old Kansas is doing it, then I'm

sure the feds at the top are definitely creating

a second by second timeline just like I am.

But no, they never reached out to him.

Now I'll tell you what else I

discovered because a lot is going on.

And we similarly, by the way, reached out

to the person who shot the footage and said,

somebody is on the roof.

We spoke about that earlier this week.

He told us the exact same thing.

He says he walked in and gave the

footage to the Orem Police Department.

Okay.

Nobody.

And they said, you know, we were

overwhelmed on that day one, which makes sense.

Everybody contacting, calling someone says, I have this.

It makes sense that he would be on

the offense and getting on the footage.

But the feds never reached out to him until the 15th.

After Governor Cox said the investigation

was over and they had the guy, the feds reached

out to him and said, hey, you're the one who shot that footage.

Yeah.

Did you make a police report?

He said, yeah, I did.

And oh, really?

We didn't know that.

What do you mean you didn't know that?

This is the first time the federal government on the 15th

decided to reach out to the other

person who saw the person climbing the roof.

I mean, I saw the person getting into the shooting position.

You never reached out to him until September 15th.

Yeah, my friends, that looks to me like a cover up.

Not like you're trying to get to the bottom of something.

Not with the amount of money that the feds have.

You can't tell me that they did not

reach out to these two individuals.

It makes entirely no sense.

There's another piece of this

that is getting quite interesting.

And I will say that this next piece that I

have is in large part thanks to a multitude

of leaks that are coming out of Turning Point USA.

Now right away, you might ask, why is that happening?

Well, I can tell you in my experience,

political organizations sometimes don't recognize that

they are not like corporate organizations.

And what I mean by that is not whether or

not the organization is a corporate, but rather

sometimes they get the wrong idea that they

can sort of do things that people can do on

Wall Street, right?

Like if a CEO steps down from Wendy's, you

can just replace that person as another CEO

and nobody cares.

If you're buying chicken nuggets from

Wendy's, you don't really care who the CEO is.

Doesn't really work like that

with political organizations, right?

Political when it comes to politics, people

get behind someone because they believe in

that individual's ideas, right?

You can't just play a swap C all the time

or think it's just going to go on and you're

still going to have that same energy behind you.

And so obviously this is a terrible situation and Charlie is

gone, but with people not getting

answers, right?

With people that are working at Turning Point USA not feeling

like, okay, are we as an organization

fighting?

Are we going to speak about the

things that Charlie cared about?

Are we going to call up with

things that we feel are wrong here?

They're not wanting to get behind that.

They feel that the organization is now being

motivated just by money and that this company's

priorities have somewhat shifted and that

really how people on the outside that are

looking in are going, what's going on here?

Why are people not more rattled

by the lies that are being told?

Actually, I think if Charlie were here, he'd

be talking about the weird things that were

being told about this story, right?

Ironically.

And so many people have reached out and

they spoke about the finances at Turning Point

USA and I'm not exactly a forensic accountant, but I know that

other people, other journalists

got really interested in this angle who were similarly

receiving leaks and have pushed

this off to forensic accountants and some of the stuff.

It's getting very interesting, but I did

want to show you guys this because I think this

proves what we have been hearing.

It's at least a starting point, an insider

who said that they were there and present

when Charlie had expressed some

concerns about where the money was going.

And leading up to that moment, Charlie had by and large

completely removed himself outside

of the organ of fundraising, which is to say

that it wasn't something that he necessarily

had his finger on.

Of course, he always would show up for top donor meetings.

He is the face of the company, but in terms

of the accounting specifics, he trusted his

lieutenants.

Of course, something that big, you're clearing $100 million a

year, you got to have lieutenants.

You have to trust those lieutenants.

And of course, sometimes those leaders don't like one another.

That's all normal.

But then there arrived a moment when

Charlie felt that the money was disappearing.

Allegedly, I'll say allegedly here, but I

think we have some proof that shows that.

And the excuses that he was being given for the money

disappearing wasn't adding up for

Charlie.

He said another way, the math wasn't math thing.

He felt that, again, according to sources,

that the company was burning through cash

too quickly.

And Charlie set about finding out why and how.