“There is No Evidence” - Andrew Wilson Challenges Candace Owens’ Israel Theory

**SPEAKER_1** (0:01)
Ugh, clothes shopping really isn't my thing. But I still want to look sharp and feel confident. That's why I use Stitch Fix, the OG personal styling service. No more scrolling through websites or wasting my day at the store.
My stylist sends pieces picked just for me straight to my door. Free shipping, free returns, no subscription required. Get started today at stitchfix.com. That's stitchfix.com.

**Patrick Bet-David** (0:30)
Andrew, your claim is overwhelming evidence that Tyler Robinson killed Charlie Kirk. Opening statements, opening comments.

**Andrew Wilson** (0:40)
Sure, and what I mean by overwhelming is I just find it very convincing. That's, I think that's what most people mean when they say overwhelming evidence. So I have a brief opening statement. On September 10th, 2025, Charlie Kirk was murdered. Many of you already know a lot about the events that occurred after Kirk's death. You remember the ghoulish laughter, celebrations, and madness we saw from leftists all over, from TikTok invasions, debates, posts on social media, destruction of memorials and things like this.
Within weeks of Kirk's death, a cottage industry began to form, peddling various alternative theories on how he died. What special interests may have killed him, what nations were involved, and was our own government one of them? Because this was the first nation-wide traumatic event in Gen Z's lifetime, the demand for answers was severe and palpable.
The leading theory from the conspiracy verse is that Israel worked with the United States government to murder Charlie Kirk. Within a day or two of Kirk's death, Ian Carroll claimed that Israel killed Charlie Kirk. And the conspiracy caught on like wildfire. This theory was built on one misleading piece of evidence, that in his final days on or around September 8th, Charlie sent a text message reading, Jewish donors play into all the stereotypes. I cannot and will not be bullied like this, leaving me no choice but to leave the pro-Israel cause. This was sent in the context of a platforming dispute regarding Tucker Carlson. From this scintilla of misleading information, it was speculated that Israel killed Charlie Kirk because he would have successfully opposed the Iranian war.
Now that's a fun theory, then who doesn't like a good fun conspiracy theory? I like them. But there is no evidence that Israel actually killed Charlie Kirk. And if Candace has some, I'd like her to actually show it to me. I'm open to suggestions, but to date, there hasn't been any.
There is, however, tons of evidence that a leftist killed Charlie Kirk, just as Charlie feared they would. I believe Charlie Kirk and I have the receipts. No, I didn't have a dream where he came to me and told me that the left killed him.
No, he didn't come to me a dream and say, Candace Owens betrayed him. That never happened. In fact, I don't need dreams of any kind because I hold my possession never before seen messages from Charlie Kirk to the security team on September 9th, 2025
I'm going to share the message with you today, which is the first time this information has ever been publicly revealed. On September 9th, Charlie's security team wrote to him, yes, law enforcement has been fully supportive and agreed to a security plan and posture. Tomorrow's event will be covered by both my team and the campus PD. If additional support is required, patrol units will be available. I have 11 on site. Charlie responded with this, okay, great, remind them that they are there for one person's security only because I'm somewhat worried the left is trying to kill me. That was a message sent September 9th.
Whatever could he have meant by that? Well, I think he meant exactly what he said, that he was worried the left was going to try to kill him.
Now we'll discuss this more later on in the debate. And maybe I have more never before seen evidence that exposes just how wrong and in my opinion, idiotic many of these conspiracy theories have been.
But that's what happens when you rely on what's called the evidence of the gaps. In other words, they don't have evidence. They seem to just make up evidence. And what did they make up? Well, in my opinion, kind of whatever lined the pockets. And I think it's ghoulish to profit off of the death of a good man.
But we came here today to debate. And so let's get to it. The debate topic today is one, my belief that there's overwhelming evidence that Tyler Robinson killed Charlie Kirk. And two, Candace's belief that there's overwhelming evidence that Tyler Robinson was a patsy and didn't kill Charlie Kirk. In some, the audience is going to decide who has more evidence supporting their theory. My theory is that the state is correct that Tyler Robinson is a killer, at least based on evidence so far, and Candace's theory that Tyler Robinson is not the killer and he's a patsy set up by the feds. To be clear, this is not a question of reasonable doubt. If it was reasonable doubt, and that's all it was, and that's all Candace was proffering, I wouldn't even be here having the debate with her. It's fair to have doubts, as a trial has yet to occur. And the state hasn't even begun to try to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. But Candace makes a more forceful claim. She claims that there's more evidence that Tyler is not guilty of murder, and was set up as a patsy than there is for the state's case. And I just think that that's absurd. And she will not be able to demonstrate that in any way. In fact, she has almost no real evidence at all of her theory, whereas my theory is supported by compelling witness testimony, physical evidence, multiple confessions, all of which are independently compelling, but which are even more convincing as each piece of evidence corroborates the others. You'll notice the term overwhelming was included in both theories. This is because Candace demanded I defend my use of that term, which I think is fair, in describing the evidence against Tyler Robinson. She on the other hand, only wanted to defend her theory as merely viable, that is until I showed her clips in which she said she believed the evidence of her theory that Tyler Robinson's impatsy was supported by overwhelming evidence. Only then did she agree to defend that position. Regardless, we're both defending the claim that there's overwhelming evidence on our side, so it's worth defining that term. When I say the evidence against Robinson is overwhelming, all I'm saying is that I mean that as of right now, I find it very convincing.