So if the Trump administration, if the FED killed Charlie Kirk. Look, there's no middle ground here right now. Either Erica Kirk is evil and was in on it, or Candace Owens is an evil.
I hope I'm being really clear about that. Stephen Crowder, what are you up to, Bud? What are you doing? What are you doing?
Really? What are you doing?
Now?
If you think that Candace has been off base, then you may agree with the underlying sentiment that Stephen Crowder is putting forward. But I want I'm going to play you the clip that he's responding to, and I want you to tell me if you think it's a fair interpretation of what Candace Owns had to say.
My heart aches for the fact that he gave so much of his life to Trump into politics, and they just were like, Nope, that is it. It serves us or it doesn't serve us, and we want to move on. And so here's a holiday, bro, If they try to give me a holiday, what is what them giving people a holiday after.
They kill him?
Why is that a thing?
You know what I mean?
Like, Oh, Martin Luther King, what about this holiday?
What about this boulevard?
Anyways, let me knock it off, like they're gonna give Charlie.
Cook and Bulevard.
They already did. They did in Israel. They gave him freaking bullet. It's like, as soon as they give you a boulevard in a holiday, they definitely killed you. Okay, there's no question they killed you. There's no way. That's like their signature thing. It's like that's what they do. It's the FED signature currently sign off after they murder you. So like holiday in a boulevard and it's never on a nice side of town either, Like Charlie Kirk boulevard is not gonna be.
A nice side town.
So what is Candace actually saying. She's saying that she thinks that Charlie Kirk was taken out by the FED. But then she talks about how there is a boulevard named after Charlie Kirk that's in Israel. So maybe she's implying that in fact, it was done in a joint operation or by a foreign intell agency, a federal government that just isn't American. I'm not sure exactly what she's she's saying, and she's not making it crystal clear, but what I'm pretty confident of is that she is not
saying that Donald Trump UMP is responsible. What I took away from it, and I think this is a much more fair reading or interpretation of what she has to say, is that she is disappointed in the Trump administration, as I share much of the disappointment not just in the Trump administration, but in many of Charlie Kirk's inner circle, from Pasobic who I read the Riot Act a couple of weeks ago, to many other figures that were very
close to Charlie who seemed completely disinterested in actually digging into this story and making sure that they have the right guy. So just because she says that he's been betrayed does not mean that he has been betrayed in terms of the actualist murder, but rather he may have been betrayed in the aftermath, as in people are not doing their jobs, cash matel dan Begino. Yeah, you guys, that that's what she's saying. I mean, that's to me,
it's crystal clear that's what she's saying. But that's not even the most far fetched interpretation, which I don't think that even though Crowder is making it seem as if it's a definitive statement that In fact, Candice Owns believes that Donald Trump ordered to hit against Charlie Kirk.
Outrageous claims, and this is an outrageous claim, require outrageous evidence, of course, as is par for the course. None has been presented. And I know that there might be an out a weaseling here saying, well, I said the Fed, not the Trump administration.
I said a boulevard in Israel. It's pretty clear.
Not clear what she said, was they the Fed give you a boulevard when they that's a sure sign that they have killed you. You know that they have killed you. He was betrayed in the worst way possible, giving so much of his life to the Trump presidency, to politics, the federal government. The Trump administration killed Charlie Kirk, is the claim.
I don't believe that, and I doubt she does either. But he interprets this even more absurdly by dragging Charlie's wife, Eric Occurr into this.
Here's now, I'm going to tell you how I feel about it, what I think about it, because you know who else would have to be involved. And this is the implication, of course, by design. And you can see the response with people out there saying Oh, well, then anyone who's close to Yeah, this is an inside job.
You know who's really close to President Trump? And you know who people are now saying stood to gain Charlie's wife, Erica Kirk, who has now been put Candace with that language, with this accusation, has put the wife of Charlie Kirk. And she'll say, that's not what I try to do. It is it's the result Erica Kirk in the crosshairs. So if the Trump administration, if the FED killed Charlie Kirk. Look, there's no middle ground here right now.
Either Erica Kirk.
Is evil and was in on it, or Candace Owens is an evil I hope I'm being really clear about that. Oh, you're being really clear. You're just not making any fucking sense whatsoever.
I mean, let's rewind a little bit, because I think in a five to six week period, especially with a news cycle that's been as fast as this one has, it's very easy to forget some of the order of operations, how things played out, and also things that have been said. I think a lot of people forget some of the
track record with these people. So let's first start with the fact that Kennice Owens herself said explicitly, there are only two people on this planet that could get her to stop digging into her personal investigation figuring out who killed her friend, and that is her family and Erica Kirk.
No one, and I mean absolutely no one outside of my husband and Erica Kirk has the power to shut me up right now.
But she didn't have to say that, but she made sure to put it out there, kind of putting it out there that Erica could tell me to be quiet and guess what I'm coming out with these episodes because she hasn't. And then you have to think about that, Why hasn't Erica ever said be quiet? If Erica did even even a tenth of what Candace has done, even said just a few sentences, they would lose all their donors. They could easily lose all their donors, all the big ones,
they could just lose them. But if Erica stays silent, and she just stays as graceful as she has, because that's all she's been doing, she's just been incredibly graceful.
So I want you to ask yourself if Candace is trying to throw shade at Erica, if she's trying to basically say that she was involved in the murder of her own husband. Would she be giving her the green light to get her to stop just by saying the word please stop? That seems odd, doesn't it. That seems a little bit out of left face if Steven Crowder's interpretation is right.
And the reason that.
It's out of left field is because it's fucking nuts. It's totally wrong. And I think with malice it is wrong. And I'll tell you why I think that. Here's another titbit of history in this six week insane cycle of news with this entire attack story, is that who was the very first person to break a big news story when it came to the assassination of Charlie Kirk. I bet you can't even remember. I'm sure some of you can, but I bet most of you can't remember. Stephen Crowder.
Stephen Crowder in the wee hours of I think it was September tenth, no of the eleventh, the day after the attack on Charlie Kirk, he releases He says, I
got breaking news. He is the one who broke the story that the shellcasings had been engraved with you know, pro trans rhetoric, whatever, that means, isn't it interesting and interesting that Stephen Crowder, of all people, who is clearly intentionally with malice smearing Candace Owens, who has been doggedly digging into this case, he was also privy to inside information from the Sheriff's Department in Utah in the early hours of the investigation. Isn't that an unbelievable coincidence? And
it makes me wonder And I'm just wondering. I don't know, but it makes me wonder, sincerely, if Stephen Crowder is inop if he's not involved deeply on some level of intelligence agencies or something, or at least he has sources that are feeding him information and maybe this is his payback. Hey, you remember when we gave you that hot story that went crazy viral and brought you back into the mainstream
relevance for a couple weeks. Well, Candice Owens has given us a lot of problems, and we're going to need you to take her down a pen.
Could you do that? Sure? All right? Thanks?
It'll go viral too, by the way, because as much as people are supporting Candid's, equal amounts are demonizing her.
So it's a it's not a hard sell. Right.
Look, I'm just this is my honest opinion. I don't know how you hear what Candace said, like you can hear what Candace says there and completely disagree. Of course, I'm not even sure I agree. I think that there's certainly not everybody who gets a street named after them was murdered by the federal government. Okay, not everybody. And she's saying like, that's a share sign. That's not a
share sign. I grew up in San Diego. There was Ted Williams Parkway, Ted Williams Baseball great not murdered by the government. I'm pretty confident. I'm pretty confident about that one. So this is not a uniform statement, and I think she's being hyperbolic. But it is also true in my opinion that Martin Luther King Junior was and he's got a whole lot of streets, and yeah, they are on the rough side of the tracks almost all the time.
And I think it's fair to wonder if perhaps Charlie Kirk was taken out by the federal government for his shift on opinion when it comes to our greatest ally.
Manytimes, the whole country's a fortress when I first heard this story. I still have the same gut instinct that I did initially. I find this very hard to believe. I've been to that Gaza border. You cannot go ten feet without running into a nineteen year old with an AR fifteen or an automatic machine gun that as an IDF soldier. Right, the whole country is surveilled. And so let me just kind of go through this. We don't talk about Israeli politics very often, and most Americans don't
know this. The last nine months Israel was on the brink of civil war. It's not an exaggeration. This judicial stuff. There were hundreds of thousands of Israelis taking to the streets because bb Netnyah, who is basically redefining the Israeli constitution. That's not an exaggeration, right. He said the judicial branch is too much power. There were protests planned this week against Netanyahu where they anticipated tens of thousands of people
to take to the streets. That's all gone, Patrick, Netanyaho now has an emergency government and a mandate to lead. I'm not willing to say to go so far that's saying that net Yahoo knew or there is intelligence here. But I think some questions need to be asked. Was there a stand down order? Was there a stand down order six hours? I don't believe it.
It's a fair question to ask. It doesn't mean it's true. It means it's a legitimate question to ask, of course, And anybody trying to stop you from asking that question is not your ally.
I promise you.
They are interested in firewalling you from genuine inquiry into the nation who is responsible and famously so for the most political assassinations of any nation on the planet over the past one hundred years, seventy five whatever. Okay, it's totally fair for you to ask that. And maybe it's not fair to say definitively, I know, because you don't have proof. That's I'll be the first to critique eint care, buddy of mine, I critique him. Don't say definitively if
you don't have proof, that doesn't help. But anybody telling you you can't even consider it, that's even worse. That's like definitely someone who's interested in painting a picture, crafting a narrative, keeping you from actual genuine inquiry into what matters tremendously, which is who actually did this and why?
Which we still don't know definitively, and.
That's why I've come to the defense time and time agative Candice owns. Even though I think that she has been sloppy at times, I think she has been reckless at times when it comes to how she has covered this story from talking about b cults and all sorts. I mean, she's just thrown shit at the wall sometimes, but she has also brought to the four more valid
information than just about anybody. And that's why I defend her, because you can take the good with the bat, and that's kind of it's a shotgun blast of information and you have to sort it out yourself.
So I just want to be very clear.
I have appreciated her efforts, despite the fact that I think she has gotten out over her skis a few times and probably put undue cause for concern on other people that were within Charlie's inner circle that probably don't deserve it. I mean almost certainly some of them probably do, though, and that's where the good with the bad comes.
Right. Here's a good example of this.
I want to be very clear, I'm making no allegations against this guy whatsoever, but this is yet another example of someone in Charlie's inner circle behaving very strangely in the aftermath of this attack. His name is Mike McCoy or Mikey McCoy, and he is the chief of staff for Charlie kirk Kirk under TPUSA, and he has this very odd reaction after the shooting. Gang finds great and I've scrolled his Instagram and it seems like they were
definitely friends. He Charlie was at his wedding, and like, it's very unusual behavior, like just putting myself in his shoes. If I see my friend get shot, I'm almost either either I'm running or I'm running towards him to try and get him to the ground faster because I'm trying to save my friend's life.
He doesn't neither. He picks up his phone.
It looks like he's putting his phone to his head, and then he immediately and casually walks away. It's unusual. But the reason I'm saying very clearly that I'm not making any allegations against him is that people do really weird shit in times of crisis. That's just the truth. A lot of people freeze, a lot of people run, a lot of people just do odd stuff. You had that one guy jumps up and like throws his hands and starts a USA chant. Maybe he is an op,
maybe he's a lunatic. People do weird shit, And when you got three thousand people there for an event that is an obvious, like crazy crisis moment, you're gonna have some weird shit that is not, in fact indicative of involvement in the murder of Charlie Kirk. So I think it's really important that when people see weird stuff like that, it's fair to ask questions, absolutely, but please be careful about making allegations against people that were close to Charlie that behaved weirdly.
I'll admit, but you don't know why.
Maybe he got on his phone right away because he realized that there was an attack and he was calling. I don't know, the authority is a hospital something like. These are all things that could be proven out, though, and if you had a functioning FBI, a functioning investigatory body, be it local or federal, then they would give you those answers and hopefully they're digging. So that's the reason that I mentioned it is like, it's not to say that it's nothing but It's also to be very clear
that it doesn't mean that it's everything. We don't know what it is. It's very strange, but it could be nothing. So just be careful, especially when you're dealing with people who, if they are innocent, as I said a week or two ago with Charlie's wife, be very careful about making accusations against if she is innocent. You're attacking a wife and a mother who is mourning the loss of her husband and one of the most graphic public political assassinations,
I mean, the most in my life. But getting back to Crowder, what are you doing, Steven Crowder? This is I'm sincerely asking you, what are you intending to do? What are you attempting to do? Because this seems like such an intentional smear job against Candis Owans, claiming that she is in fact alleging that Charlie's wife was involved with a murder of her own husband, when in fact Candis Owans has not said that, and to a large extent, she's basically said the opposite, that she will stop if
Erica Kirk tells her to. And I might also add that Cannis Owens and Erica Kirk started following each other after the attack. They did not follow each other prior to the attack. And I think that's interesting. Doesn't mean everything, but it could be something for sure that perhaps Erica enjoys that Candas is doing this, she appreciates it. Perhaps
she's feeding her information. That's something that people ought to be asking themselves if Candis Owns is tarnishing Charlie's legacy and jeopardizing his organization and all this stuff, which is what a lot of the detractors of Candis Owns are saying. Erica Kirk, who's now basically taking over at the helm of TPUSA, who has a green light from Candas Owns, who said in public if you tell me to shut up, I will, hasn't done. So why is it hurting her brand?
Is it hurting the case, the investigation and the murder of her husband? Doesn't seem like she feels that way. So what are you doing, Stephen Crowder? What exactly are you doing?
Buddy?
And I'll just say in conclusion, I'm not sure, but it strikes me as op like behavior. It does, and it makes me wonder how you got those leads about the shellcasings in the wee hours of the next day, how'd you do that? And why are you intentionally taking her out of context? Not even out of context, you're playing the clip and then just lying about what she said.
Weird, weird behavior.
But he's not the only one got so seth Dylan going on with Dana Loshan.
Do you think that some of this is maybe the consequence of, you know, it's great to have a coalition or a big tint, but there's certain things that are just persona non grata in a coalition and using identity politics like the left ought to be one of them. Is some of this a failure to enforce that?
Oh, certainly.
I just wrote about this in the Free Press, by the way, talking about the foolishness of the no enemies to the right principle. I think it's not just foolish, it's immoral, you know, to not draw a line, to not be willing to say, you know, there are certain people that you won't lock arms with.
A lot of these things. These are things that were the right.
There was a lot more moral clarity on the right several years ago, where the alt right or you know, this white supremacist kind of like equal but opposite reaction to like the leftist antifa thugs. Like everybody kind of saw that as being this really fringe, really nasty thing that we didn't want any part of, and we distinguished between ourselves and them. We're like, they keep calling Trump, you know, and his supporters Nazis and Hitler and whatever, like,
we're not like that. There may be people like that on the fringe far right, but we're not like them, we would distinguish. Now there are calls to join with them and to bring them into the movement. They're just filled with bigotry and hatred, they have authoritarian impulses, they're collectivists. Like you add all these things up and it's like, how could we possibly benefit from having them in the
conservative movement? That doesn't make any sense. You know, this is a real reckoning for conservatives to decide what is our identity? What is a conservative? That's the next question that we need to be asking me. We had that question about what was a woman, Now we need to have it about what is a conservative.
Well, we agree on one thing, we should be asking what a conservative is. And I also agree that I'm not very fond of collectivists or identitarians, which makes me ask the obvious next question, which is, why is it that you're so permissive, Why are you so accepting? Why are you so willing to excommunicate anybody who's not willing to accept the obvious collective identitarian worldview of zionis?
Why is that the.
One exception that should be allowed for on the right, but Nick Fuentes has to be excommunicated.
Isn't that interesting?
So my argument would be, if you want to get rid of the white nationalists, well then you ought to be getting rid of the Jewish nationalists too. On the right wing. That should not be permissible either, but it is. There's an exception being made, and that interesting, which draws into question your credibility, your entire worldview for that matter. You seem to be a fraud and I'm calling you that. I think that's my opinion. You are being a fraudulent actor.
You're trying to gate keep a right wing movement, which you have no right to do. You have no right to do so because you're not even maintaining your own worldview in the prescription or description of what's transpiring right now. And moreover, you are tarnishing in fact, Charlie Kirk's legacy because this was the main fight that he was in in the final months of his life, which was to try and keep a big tent to allow for Candie Owans and Tucker Carlson, etc.
Etc.
Dave Smith to continue to attend TPUSA events and to kind of open up the dialogue when it came to American Israeli relations. That was what Charlie wanted. That is what he said in the final forty eight hours of his life that he had no choice but to abandon the pro Israel cause because he was hemorrhaging donors to that end. So, yeah, when you so casually and flippantly try and destroy Candis Owans, you're really doing what you're accusing her of, which is classic projection and gaslighting. I
don't appreciate it. I don't, and I think that Charlie wouldn't appreciate it either. I think that he would definitely see what I'm saying here that you are the one making the exception for identitarianism and collectivism. You're the one doing that while accusing others of doing the same just because we refuse to go along with it.
And that interesting.
But Seth Dylan isn't the only one who's been trying to make his name on the back of this crisis. Josh Hammer, who I have already demolished for being an overtliar during an active murder investigation, had this to say a couple days ago.
So the fact that we even had this big debate over Charles's legacy on Israel and Jews is pretty disturbing in of itself. But the reason that that Candice, I think, ultimately decided to go down this hyper conspiratorial, evil and demonic and twisted path when it comes to me in particular, is that it complicates her narrative and their narrative. It complicates their narrative because they can't stand the fact that a kipa yamaka wearing Jew who wrote a book about
Israel and the US Western civilization. They can't stamp the fact that someone like that, someone like me, was actually in Charlie's inner circle. It deeply muddies, It deeply complicates their narrative, and therefore the narrative can't exist and has to be a radicid.
Let me be crystal clear with you, Josh Hammer, I couldn't give a fuck less about your religion. I don't like you because you lied about a guy who you claim was your friend, who you were in the inner circle with. You lied about his mindset during an active murder investigation, and as far as I'm concerned, that makes you, that opens you up for inquiry from the officials that are trying to figure out motives for why Charlie Kirk was killed. And if they're not fucking talking to you,
it's a tragedy. It's a travesty of justice. Actually, so I hope that they are, but just this constant, I mean, Oh, I'm woe is me?
I'm such a victim? Right.
You lied about the group messages, of the group chat that you were in and the nature of those communications that you were having with Charlie Kirk forty eight hours before he was murder in front of the world. And you're saying, Oh, Cannice Owens is attacking you because of your religion. Really, that's that's the reason that we're upset with you, Huh. Not because you lied during an active murder investigation about her friend. No, because of your religion.
If you can't see it for the shield that it's being used as, I don't know what to tell you. I've never seen a more brazen and blatant example of using the anti Semitism shield for bad behavior that I've ever I've ever seen. It's just so obvious and reprehensible. So yeah, Josh Hammer, Seth Dylan, and Steven Crowder, I don't think that you're honest actors, and I don't I don't understand necessarily the nature of the game that you're playing,
but it isn't a truthful one. And I'm going to continue to track in terms of following what you have to say because I have to. I have to figure out what's going on with this narrative battle. Why exactly are you doing what you're doing. Why are you overtly lying time and time again about people who seem to be genuinely interested in the truth of who killed Charlie Kirk? Why are you doing that? I'll leave that up to the audience to decide. You guys, tell me why are
they doing that? Paid operatives just trying to capitalize on the time of crisis to make their names a little bit bigger or something worse.
I don't know.
I being totally honest, I don't know, but these are not honest people speaking of dishonest people. Let's tie into yesterday's show and talk get a little update on the West Bank acquisition from the Israelis. Obviously, jd Vance said that that was not going to happen, and Trump said the same. This is what Bibi has to say.
The time Israe Dombamba Gumba usual.
Now he's not speaking English, so I'll translate. He's basically saying, we're an indpenitation. They don't get to dictate what we're going to do, despite the fact that we exist at their mercy from financial to military support.
Uh, we're going to do what we want.
When it comes to the West Bank. Have you got a problem with it, you can kick rocks. Well here's what Jade Vance had to say.
Thanks, sorry, I go ahead, We'll do The West Bank vote yesterday that took a place while you were in the country.
Oh yeah, that was weird.
That was weird. I was sort of confused by that. Now. I actually asked somebody about it and they told me that it was a symbolic vote, some symbolic vote to recognize or a symbolic vote to annex the West Bank.
I mean, what I would say to that.
Is is when I asked about it. Somebody told me that it was a political stuff, that it had no practical significance, it was purely symbolic. I mean, look, if it was a political stunt, it was a very stupid political stunt, and I personally take some insult to it. The West Bank is not going to be anexed by Israel. The policy of the Trump administration is that the West
Bank will not be nx by Israel. That will continue to be our policy, and if people want to take symbolic votes, they can do that, but we certainly weren't happy about it, thank you.
I was personally insulted. Well, that's good to hear, JD. And I hope you're sincere with that. For those that aren't familiar, the way Palestine is laid out is that it is essentially separated into two. You have Gaza and then you have the West Bank. And Gaza has been destroyed because that's where Hamas attacked from. But the West Bank has been slowly being taken over by settlers. But it is a piece of more peaceful region of Palestine, if there is one.
And there was a vote right after Donald Trump said this.
Is this week and he would not allow Israel to annex the West Banking.
I will not allow Israel to annex the West Bank. No, I will not allow it. It's not going to happen. But I'm not going to allow it. Whether I spoke to him or not, I did, but I'm not allowing Israel to annex the West Bank.
There's been enough.
It's time to stop now.
Okay.
Now that's about as crystal clear as Donald Trump ever gets, especially when it comes to the topic of Israel saying not going to happen, flatly not going to happen. Then the next day after that, they have some allegedly ceremonial vote where they're voting on annexing up the West Bank. And yeah, it passed. I think it was in the Kannesset. So that's that's why jade Vance responded the way he did.
And I just the whole reason I wanted to bring all this up is that this is really this is the divide on the right wing, and this is like, are we an independent nation or not? Who is in the driver's seat, who's the dog, who's the tail, who's wagon who We're about to find out if after all of the aid and support, military support, everything else munitions that has been provided to Israel in their war, and
especially after Donald Trump is being very clear. He's not saying it overtly, but I'll tell you what he's saying. I'll translate. What he's saying is I told the Arab nations when it came to negotiations with a moss to get the ceasefire, to get those hostages out, that the West Bank will not be annexed. That's obviously what he's saying. So I told the Arab leaders the West Bank will not be annexed. Well, why was he talking to the Arab leaders, Well, because they were trying to negotiate a
seasfire and a release of those hostages. So he's saying that was a chip. That was a promise that I made to the Arab leaders to get them to get Hamas to back down. And if you take the West Bank in the aftermath of this, then I look like a lying asshole, and I look like I'm totally not in control, and I'm the leader of America and allegedly the leader of the free world, and that can't happen. And then Netanyahu goes, we're an independentation, We'll do what
we want. So we're about to find out who's an independent nation. It's only there can only be one as high Lander. It's high lender mode right now. Oh gosh, what a crazy world. All right, I'm gonna get out of here. If you enjoy this episode, please do it. Hit a like button, subscribe, leave a comment, and most importantly share it around. Pick up your your mom, grandma,
niece's phone. Go search in their podcast you know pod catcher app and search Liberty Lockdown, Liberty Lockdown two words and subscribe and then hit auto update and just red pill the shit out of your Gigi because that's hilarious. And as always, if you want to get cozy, go to my pillow dot com use promo code Lockdown and pick you up some Mike Lindell styled coziness my pillow dot Com from Code Lockdown.
Love you guys by subscribe to Liberty Lockdown. Great podcast. Clint is Tight