All language subtitles for nvn.0910.023

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.