Kirk's killer to stand trial... Candace Owens hardest hit | Hour 1

So, I want to do a quick moment of silence here. For Candace Owens. Thank you. Yeah, she was obviously the big loser. Actually, I could just end the sentence there. But no, she was the biggest loser in the decision yesterday in Utah that the alleged murderer of Charlie Kirk can stand trial. for the murder of Charlie Kirk. I don't know what Candace is going to do. This is going to be very difficult for her. She has spent the last year monetizing the murder of her quote-unquote friend, attacking the widow and the friends of Charlie Kirk, accusing them of having something to do with the murder or covering up the murder, then denying she said those things, but everything is on video. So you can go back and watch her say those things in between her bouts of wrestling with word pronunciation. Um, yeah. So, uh, the judge, this was not a close call by the way. Uh, Charlie Kirk's alleged killer will stand trial for aggravated murder for the September 10th, 2025 shooting. and this is from CBS News. The 2025 shooting of the right-wing political activist in front of a crowd at Utah Valley University, a judge ruled yesterday. A right-wing political activist. Do you ever hear anybody referred to as a left-wing political activist? God knows we see them all over the place, right? So how come we don't hear that term? We always hear, advocates for the homeless, advocates for voting rights. They're all voting rights advocates. They're all civil rights advocates. But no, no, Charlie Kirk, rather than identify him as a Christian conservative activist because that's what he actually was, and in fact, in one of the last, if not the last, interview appearance that he made, he was asked by the interviewer, you know, at some point down the road, after all is said and done, you go to meet your maker, what is the thing that you want to be most remembered for? And he said, for his faith. That's the thing that defined Charlie Kirk, was his Christianity. And they want to make it all about right-wing political activism, but he was a Christian conservative activist. Anyway, the judge, Tony Graff, decided in favor of the state, the prosecution, who say they have enough evidence against Tyler Robinson to put the 23-year-old on trial on a charge of aggravated murder. This is the enhancement charge, right? That means he could face the death penalty and or life in prison without parole, or 25 years to life in prison with parole. Those are the options now available as far as sentencing goes, but we have not even had the trial. And I said before, you know, this was the defense's attempt to get some kind of better bargaining position before going to trial because the The evidence here is so overwhelming that only Candace Owens and her audience could ignore it. So the defense team, which has not made any of the arguments that Candace Owens and her army of morons, they've not introduced any of that stuff for some reason. Not sure why they wouldn't bring in Candace Owens as a special investigator to help them uncover the real killer. So they were trying to get as much leverage as they could. This is my guess. They're trying to get as much leverage as they can in order to get the best plea agreement that they can. And it didn't really work. Now, the state could still enter into a plea deal. But as I just mentioned, there are three different options as far as sentencing goes that are on the table. And with the death penalty being on the table, if you're trying to do a plea deal, the lowest one, the 25 years to life with parole, That's basically off the table, right? The midpoint is now life in prison without parole. So that may be the best deal they could get for their client without going to trial. Because if you go to trial, the risk there is that you get convicted and Utah puts you to death for it. So that's going to be a decision up to Tyler Robinson. I suspect that his defense team would recommend that he take a deal. And because now the death penalty is available as an option, it basically puts the midpoint at life without parole. They were trying to get the enhancements tossed out in the pretrial hearings. They were unsuccessful. Had they been successful, it would have taken the death penalty off the table. And then you would be negotiating just like from a life without parole max to 25 to life with parole. And then you've got all this room inside of there to negotiate with. But because the judge says, no, the enhancements, they will be applied. I think that takes it off the table. And so my guess, and I'm not a lawyer, my guess is that now may be the best option that they could get out of the state in a plea agreement if they decide to avoid the trial. Prosecutors presented much of the evidence against Robinson during a five-day hearing back in July. A factor for the aggravated murder charge is a reasonable belief that the defendant knowingly endangered others in the commission of the murder. And this was, we talked about it at the time, the defense was trying to argue that nobody else was in any danger, even though there were thousands of people all around Charlie Kirk. There were people... between the gunman and the target, there were people behind the tent that Charlie Kirk was sitting in. There were people on both sides of him. And the defense was arguing, well, because he only fired one round and it hit its target, nobody else was in any danger. Oh, and the bullet stayed inside Charlie Kirk's body. It broke apart. So therefore, right, there was no reasonable expectation that other people could face harm or serious injury. which is just absurd. The guy had four more rounds in the chamber that he had also stenciled, you know, pro-trans and anti-Kirk messaging. And it's obvious that had he missed the first shot, he would have continued firing. That's why you have all of the rounds ready to go. Oh, and of course, the thousands of people between the gunman and the victim. So they were all put in danger. Everybody was put in danger. And the defense tried to make some argument about why that wasn't the case. The judge was not obviously having any of it. And so he said, nope, that enhancement can stick. Oh, and also the knowledge that kids were present and would witness the shooting. Also an enhancement. That also sticks. All right, for over a year now, you've heard me talking about Create-A-Video, great local company in Mint Hill that has helped more than 2 million families preserve their memories by turning old photos, VHS tapes, film reels, and slides into lasting keepsakes. Now, Create-A-Video is helping families and groups create brand new memories while they're traveling. Introducing Group Travel Videos, perfect for family reunions, church mission trips, and Group vacations, destination weddings, student trips, senior adult groups, sports teams, I mean, really any gathering of people that you care about that's traveling together. Group Travel Videos gives your traveling pack a private app where everyone can share photos during the trip, send messages, share schedules and important documents, even a traveler safety locator feature that works only during the trip. And family members and friends back home can follow along and enjoy the experience in real time. No social media, no ads. It's totally private. No emails, phone numbers, account setups, or hassles. With group travel videos, you'll capture today's moments on your special trip while they're happening. Then, after the trip or gathering... They'll professionally turn your shared moments into a beautiful storytelling video that your whole group can stream and download and treasure for years. Check out GroupTravelVideos.com. That's GroupTravelVideos.com. And when you do that, ask for Katie. But Pete, can I just email? Well, yes, you can. You can email Katie. katie at group travel videos dot com group travel videos from old memories to new adventures preserving life's moments for a lifetime all right let me go over to the text line this is from ian who says um i would still like to push candace owens's cute little button nose and go beep as long as i don't have to listen to her that's that's fair Um, Tony B says Candace could leave the defense, a big duffel bag full of all those receipts that she always claimed to have. Right. Why? Why hasn't she delivered all of her evidence? You know, she's got some sort of a bulletin board with photos and, you know, thumbtacks connecting strings of yarn together, making all of the connections. Or maybe it's a PDF file. I don't know. But, like, you know she's tracked it all. She's built all of this evidence. So just give it to the defense and let them spring Tyler Robinson. Time is running out, Candace. Holly says, Pete, my favorite host. Oh, thank you, Holly. Wonder why Candace did not tell her listeners that the idea of a confession of guilt happened in the investigator's interview. when his dad turned him in. Well, see, that's a piece of evidence that does not generate clicks, that does not generate comments and views, doesn't get the virality, right? So you don't talk about that piece of evidence. And that's one of the hallmarks of all conspiracy theories is that any evidence that flies in the face of your preferred theory is is either ignored or it's just proof that they, whoever they happen to be in this case, apparently it's the Jews, the French foreign Legion, and maybe some Egyptian airplanes, but that, Oh, and Erica Kirk and everybody that worked at TP USA, that any evidence to the contrary of your conspiracy theory is proof that they planted this evidence. This is what they're making it look like. You see, But no, she cannot talk about the fact that this guy confessed on at least four different occasions, right? So, like, he told his parents. He told his roommate. I think he told the police. He told the friend of the family. I think he even said something about it in a chat group. So, like, he's made confessions to, like, anybody that would listen in the immediate aftermath. So... Like, I'm pretty sure that's going to come out at trial, and this is why... Well, you know what? Candace may take another impromptu vacation, just like she took during the hearing, the week-long hearing that was held. She wasn't broadcasting that week. And she totally forgot to tell her audience that she was on a family trip to, I believe, Rome. I think she went to Rome. Trent says... What way to get justice, the death penalty, one means of executing the death penalty in Utah is the firing squad. Yeah, I believe that's correct. I believe Utah did bring back the firing squad. 864 number. Sorry, Pete. Kirk was not a Christian. Christians don't talk like that. Like what? Anonymous 864 number. Kirk doesn't, so no Christian talks like Charlie Kirk did? I'm curious, like, also, like, do you have credentials that you get to determine who is and isn't a Christian? I'm curious. No, but what specifically did he say? I'm sure you've got examples, because otherwise, why would you make such an assertion if you don't have examples of the things that he had said? So I would love to hear some of the things that prove to you that he wasn't a Christian. when he himself claimed to be and preached Christianity to the crowds. Jonathan, Pete, you made an incorrect statement. Far-right media does not refer to the left as activists. Did I say far-right media does not refer to the left? What? So I made an incorrect statement and You're saying far right media. Like, did I mention anything about or are you saying CBS News is far right media? Is that the assertion? You got to be clearer with your dumb assery. I mean, I know it's kind of paradoxical, but like you really should be a little bit clearer when you are attempting to score a point, which I assume is coming here. Let's see here if he if he can stick the landing. Come on, Jonathan. I got I got faith in you. Far-right media does not refer to the left as activists. They refer to them as socialists and communists so you can get off your high horse about only the far-right getting derogatory labels. And then he put labels in quotes. Oh, man. I regret to inform you, Jonathan did not stick the landing here. Okay, so number one, this is CBS News that refers to Charlie Kirk as a right-wing political activist. I suggested Christian conservative would also have been accurate. You could have identified him as that. And I pointed out earlier that whenever you get these leftists that go out and protest things or they're quoted in articles and stuff, they're always referred to as an advocate or if an activist will be from a left-leaning organization, something like that for... and they promote these kinds of rights, right? It's never a far-left activist, never a far-left political activist. And I've covered this as well with the use of democratic socialism, the rise of DSA, and we've noticed that They've now started swapping out DSA labels and socialist labels for progressive. So they're labeling every, the legacy media outlets, the quote unquote mainstream media, they are labeling people on the left who are Marxists. They are labeling them as progressives and then trying to establish like the other Democrats on the left who are also progressive and have identified themselves as liberals and progressives they're trying to call them moderates now. That's what's happening there. So not really, not really sure. Yeah. I mean, if somebody identifies as a socialist, I'm going to call them a socialist. That's, I mean, aren't, I'm just honoring their preferred pronoun, Jonathan. Returning to ye old text line, shall we? Mike says regarding evidence, Is Candace Owens related to Adam Schiff? Or maybe trained under him? I don't know. That's a good question. I mean, I'm not saying I know that she trained under Adam Schiff. But I know no. To quote Candace Owens. Mark says, Charlie Kirk was more Christian than most people. And let's see here. Oh, see, I knew you wouldn't be able to resist. Here's a message from Candy Crusher, who I have named because it's got a bit, I think a bit of a crush on Candace Owens. That's why I call you that. I mean, I don't know no, but I know no, you know. Candy Crusher says, Pete, it's clear you don't know much about the case. No, that's, you totally got me dead to rights. I don't. I don't know any of the details. Didn't watch any of the hearing except like all of it. Watched all of the evidence production. Yeah, I don't. You got me. Got me, man. I have no clue. Kind of like Candace Owens with no clues. And you and the texter are still repeating that the father turned him in, which isn't true. Did I say the father turned him in? I said he confessed to his parents. And then to the guy, the friend of the family, I believe it was like a retired law enforcement officer or something. And he, and the, the mother and father had Tyler Robinson talk to that person to coordinate Tyler Robinson, turning himself in who, and then after that, he confessed to the investigator. I believe that that was the, but I don't know. Cause I didn't watch any of the, the hearing. I haven't followed the case at all for a year. So yeah. Um, And it was the parents who wanted Tyler to turn himself in. That's what the DA said. That's how that happened. That's how they arranged for it to happen with the family friend. Oh, and also, while we're talking about the parents, not the... nothing, this is another thing that I like to call evidence, which is that the mother, Tyler Robinson's mother, recognized Tyler from the video still shots that were published while they were doing the manhunt for Robinson. His own mother recognized him from the camera. Just a piece of evidence. Feel free to ignore it if it doesn't fit into your conspiracy theory. And then, of course, here's what, you know, conspiracy theorists always do. And they say things like, I'm just asking questions here. We have a right to ask questions. This is usually part of it. Candy Crusher goes on to say, I'm not picking sides on the case. I don't know what happened, but anyone is okay. You don't know what happened. Is this another Candace Owens kind of a, I don't know. No, but I know. No, you know, is that, is that what you're doing here? The only person that knows for certain with 100% certainty is Tyler Robinson. He's the only one. Everybody else. has to look at what I like to call evidence, and you stack that evidence up into what becomes the reasonable conclusion. Because in any crime, right, unless there are direct witnesses to the crime that saw you pull the trigger and kill this person, right, if it's only two people in the room and one person is dead and the other is charged, There's only one person that knows if they did it, and it's the one that did or did not do it. So that is a ridiculous standard when it comes to criminal law. This idea that I don't know what really happened. With 100% certainty, you will never know in virtually every case. Some, yes, but most, no. So you look at the evidence, and this is why we have a standard of reasonable doubt. Does it rise to the level of a reasonable doubt? Is there a reasonable doubt when presented with all of the evidence that the prosecution has so far laid out and there will be more to come at trial? Is there a reasonable doubt? I would submit no, there's not. The overwhelming amount of evidence points to Tyler Robinson. You cannot knock down every single piece of evidence. Otherwise, he's just the unluckiest guy that ever walked the face of the earth. And that's just insane. Anyway, so I don't know. What happened? But anyone interested in the case should watch the Candace Owens versus Andrew Wilson debate. No, not necessary. Four hours of her tap dancing around. You know what the purpose of that debate was besides to make her a couple hundred thousand dollars with her live reads and endorsements? Do you know what the purpose of that was? It was to avoid the massive defamation case that's going to drop on her head after this criminal trial is over because that's what's coming. It's going to come from Erica Kirk. It's going to come from Turning Point USA. They are going to do to her what the Sandy Hook families did to Alex Jones. That's what I suspect is coming. And she deserves every bit of it. Every bit of it. Because she tried to walk back all of the assertions, all of the accusations. She tried to pretend that she didn't say this stuff. There are videos that you can watch that have been compiled by people that will give her a click. I will not. And you can see, side by side, her saying one thing, like they were complicit in Charlie Kirk's murder. And then you see her saying in the other clip, I never said that they were complicit, that Erica Kirk and Turning Point and all that, that they were complicit in his murder. She's a liar. Lies. Lie, lie, lie, lie, lie. All over the place. So, no, there's no point in watching. You can if you want to waste four hours of your time. You can do that. Also, I think it's disingenuous to imply Candace is just doing this investigation for clicks or clout. It's not disingenuous at all. It is absolutely not disingenuous. The mechanism and the methods that she uses are well-known to broadcasters. The things she does and the way she does them are well-known in my industry, okay? So I know when I'm seeing what she's doing with her gish galloping and her teasing and all this, more to come tomorrow. Make sure you get my merch and all of this. Well-known tactics. Broadcasters know what she's doing. So Candy has responded. And there was one last bit here in the previous text. Candy said, it's clear that Candace is extremely invested in the case and was very close personally with Kirk. I don't have any doubt that she was personally invested in Charlie Kirk. In fact, I have heard from people in those circles who say that she was in love with Charlie Kirk. And that's maybe why she kind of hates Candace Owen or hates Erica Kirk. But I don't know that. but I know no. And so here's the response, and this is what you usually get from conspiracy theorists who don't want to actually stand behind their assertions. You have to state your assertion, okay? This idea, Candy, that you're like, oh, I'm not saying this. This is the classic tap dance of the conspiracy theorist, and I've dealt with enough conspiracy theories in this position for a very long time that I know your patterns. You may not realize you're doing it. You may not know the patterns, but I do because I've dealt with a lot of people over the years with a lot of different conspiracy theories, and this is usually then where it goes, which is this rejection of quote-unquote authority, right? Like, oh, you'll hear it right here. Got it. Pete knows because he's a broadcaster with a show us peasants are too dumb to understand. No, that's not at all what I said. I said people who are in the broadcast industry understand the methods that she is employing as a broadcaster. Now, that's not to say that you don't recognize them. You could recognize them too. I'm telling you, I recognize them. I'm telling you, people in this line of work that have been doing this for any extended period of time recognize the way that she does her show. We recognize the mechanisms, right? I mentioned the gish galloping. It's a barrage of fact, fact, fact, fact, fact, fact. And meanwhile, in all of that deluge of quote-unquote facts, they aren't. And what that is designed to do is to knock people that you're arguing with, is to knock them off balance and to convince people listening that you obviously know more about it because look at all the quote facts that you just smacked down. When in fact, those aren't facts. And this is why what you'll hear me do is I will focus on a single thing. And when I'm in a debate with a leftist or something, I will keep dragging them back to the original question. Because that's how you get the clarity, right? So that's the first thing. So just because I recognize the mechanisms doesn't mean you can't. You can. I just told you one. I mentioned one called gish galloping. It's a It's a tactic. And once you are aware of the tactic, then you will spot it whenever you see it. You're not too dumb to understand. Nobody is oppressing you, Candy. You can do all of this stuff yourself. And don't bother watching the debate or any of the opposing evidence that could assert reasonable doubt. Just listen to me because I'm a broadcaster. See, this is another thing that leftists do, but also conspiracy theorists do, is you're putting words in my mouth that I did not say. I didn't say don't watch it. In fact, if I recall correctly, it's only been about five minutes ago, but if I recall correctly, I said you are free to go watch it. If you want to go watch that four-hour waste of time, you can go ahead and do so. Go. I'm not stopping you. I'm not telling you not to. But here's the thing. When you talk about opposing evidence, I rely on standards of evidence that are proven. And you do that in a court of law. And this is why Candace Owens, and to be honest, and I love you, so I'm going to tell you the truth here, you, this is why you and Candace Owens are going to be in a bit of trouble. Because over hundreds of years, our society, our civilization, has built up the standards for proof. It's called court, right? The standards of evidence. And that's why you're not seeing any of this crap that Candace Owens is talking about. None of that's in the court proceedings. Her defense team is not using any... of your quote unquote evidence to raise reasonable doubt. You know why? Because it doesn't meet any standard of evidence. You know, it does meet the standards of evidence, all the stuff that the state brought in. Now, during trial, the defense will have an opportunity to impeach any of that stuff. That's going to be their right to do so. We'll see if they're able to do so. But I rely on the standards of evidence that we have built up as a civilization for hundreds of years. Not a podcaster who, yes, is paid for more traffic and touts those numbers in almost every episode she does. Right. He says, all I'm saying is people really should look deeper into it if they want to understand past the talking heads. There's strong evidence on both sides. No, no, there's no strong evidence on the other side or else they would have presented it already. All right, that'll do it for this episode. Thank you so much for listening. I could not do the show without your support and the support of the businesses that advertise on the podcast. So if you'd like, please support them, too, and tell them you heard it here. You can also become a patron at my Patreon page or go to the Pete Kaliner show dot com. Again, thank you so much for listening and don't break anything while I'm gone.