Kind: captions
Language: en
We've got Piers Morgan versus Candace
Owens. You're lying for money is
essentially the vibe. It was a viral
showdown between Piers on his show
uncensored with Candace and it ended up
with Piers directly accusing Candace
Owens of lying to boost her YouTube
numbers about Charlie Kirk and Bridget
Mcronone. The clash centered on Piers's
belief that Candace is making assertions
about Charlie Kirk's assassination
without sufficient evidence. Needless to
say, that did not go over well with
Candace. Piers also seemed skeptical
about Candace and Erica Kirk meeting
behind closed doors instead of having
the public meeting with Megan Kelly
moderating, which was the original
stance that they were taking. But
Candace had decided that Turning Point
USA was probably right, that taking down
the temperature first was probably the
right place. So, they did that. But
we'll see if anything super productive
comes out of that. Now, Candace pushed
back on Piers and all of his
accusations, making it clear that she
thinks the public is being fed what she
calls more Fed slop like we were with
the JFK assassination. And she is, and
this is a paraphrase, but it's pretty
damn close to a quote, she's not going
to be treated like asking questions is
the crime. The real crime, she said, was
Charlie getting shot in the neck. And
she is not going to let anybody stop her
from asking questions. She also said
directly that she wouldn't be surprised
if there were people inside of Turning
Point USA that had four knowledge of
Charlie's assassination. A pretty big
claim. And that she gave two very
specific names to Erica for further
investigation. She was not prepared to
release those names to peers. She said
she does not have concrete evidence. And
given that they are private citizens,
that did not feel right. The most
interesting part of the exchange for me,
if I'm being honest, is the way that all
of this highlights the James Burnham of
it all. We are witnessing right now in
real time a broader credibility crisis
as it relates to official sources and
ultimately we're pushing into what I'm
going to call vibe journalism. I really
think that Candace is creating a new
form of entertainment and I think it
being understood as entertainment is the
right play.
>> Let's jump into the clip. This is the
first clip where Pierce accuses her of
just extrapolating this whole saga just
for clips and money. There are, as you
know, right now a lot of people from Tim
to the New York Post to others who've
come out very stridently in the last
week alone in the last week and say
that's exactly what you've been doing
with Erica Kirk.
>> Yeah, but you haven't answered the
question. So, this is just made up. It's
as I said, this is just all fluff.
You're you're suggesting that I'm making
money. Did I sign a new advertiser? Are
we meeting more? Are we reading more
ads? Do we put this somewhere else? Do
we sign more views on YouTube?
>> Did I sell a t-shirt? Okay, but come on,
Pierce. money on YouTube. Are are you
kidding me?
>> So money on YouTube, the way she says it
is like you don't really make there's
she's making millions of dollars off of
money on YouTube. Let's be very clear
about that. And then her podcast
probably does three, four, fivex that.
So anyway, back to it. But I do think
honestly that part of the claim from
Piers was bangon in terms of for sure as
re as the views go up she's going to be
making a lot more money. But she's right
in terms of everything I do has made me
extremely popular. And do you really
think I'm going to sell out my friend to
go from 5 to one? Anyway, back to the
clip.
>> Global before Charlie was assassinated.
And if you think that I would want my
friend to be assassinated so I could go
from being in the top five to being
number one, you're out of your mind.
Okay. So disrespectful. But like the
point is that nobody, everyone who is
saying that I'm making more money cannot
say how I'm making more money cuz it's
just not true.
>> He literally just said how you're making
more money. You are driving views. So, I
think she has a legitimate argument,
which is listen, I cover topics that are
extremely controversial. I've got the
she doesn't say this, but she's got the
balls to like take the heat for said new
form of entertainment. From where I'm
sitting, it is self-evident that this is
a money-making endeavor that this will,
if it hasn't already, with all the legal
bills and stuff, this is going to make
her a fantastically wealthy person if
she's able to sustain this for years.
Look at how much money Joe Rogan has
made. And she's got a chance to have
that same kind of reach, have
sustainability, if she can avoid being
taken down by all the legal stuff. There
is a ton of money, a ton of money to be
made in this. So, that part's very
disingenuous. I, if I were her, the
argument that I would be making would go
something like this. Yes, I'm making
money off of talking about these things
because the public is sick and tired of
being trapped inside of an elite bubble
where they're being fed a bunch of
And the fact that I can get
attention by drawing people over to
what's actually true or the pursuit of
the truth obviously, Piers, this is a
whole new era and it should be rewarded.
That would be where I would come from
versus the money on YouTube. Like, what
are you talking about? Uh, nobody can
tell me how I'm making money yet. Not
only can they, they just did. So, that
part is insincere. I'm not sure why
she's trying to dodge that. Like, just
lean into it. Yes, there's a ton of
money to be made, but if you're really
going to be journalistic, which I don't
think she is, but I don't think she's
lying. I think she believes the things
that she's saying. I think she is the
person that is going to rise up in this
moment because she is vibes. That's
seems to be how she navigates the world.
She has a gut instinct. She believes
that gut instinct is I I'm now being a
little unfair in my paraphrasing, but
like the Lord speaking to her through
her gut instincts. Her friends coming to
her in dreams and revealing truth. It's
like, okay, if you've got that world
view, then you put that all together
into,
>> well, I feel this way and therefore it's
true. So, pretty wild coming from
somebody who pushed back so hard on,
well, I feel like a woman and therefore
am a woman. I would say she's falling
into a very similar trap. But it shows
you how humans are, in my estimation, so
victimized by their own emotions. Like
people are just convinced that is
real, which is wild.
>> I don't think this is a I'm making more
money type thing. Yes, number goes up,
views goes up, but the brand deals that
Candace broke, she didn't break them on
the back of Charlie Kirk. We know
because there's been a bunch of brands
that are like, "Hey, what's your topic
this week?" Uh, we don't want to
advertise on that. We'll take a step
back. So, it's not like she, to her
point, she didn't sign a new brand deal.
These are the same brand deals she's
been doing since through the summer. So
I I don't want to say that she went
from, you know, poverty to started
talking about Charlie Kirk and now she's
living in a penthouse. It's definitely
nothing that drastic. Viewership numbers
do go up and that does make, you know,
sell selling ads easier for your team,
but I definitely don't think that, you
know, she's bringing raking in the money
hand over fist to her point just because
her friend died. Like I don't think
anybody would take that deal. I think
that while we are rightfully
acknowledging that she's getting
millions of views for her for this
conspiracy being drawn out this far, I
just don't think that she's doing it to
make the money. I don't think that's her
goal. I don't think that's
>> I don't think that's why she picked this
at all. But the mechanism is she is
going to always talk about whatever is
going to capture the public's
imagination the most. She's always going
to frame things in a way that is the
most entertaining. It's part of her
brilliance and people wasting time being
mad about that I think is dumb. But her
trying to pretend that that isn't the
game is also dumb in my opinion. Like
it's one of the things that gives her a
weak point of credibility. Is when she's
like making out like what do you mean
I'm making money off this? What do you
mean that like my numbers going up is
going to be better for the business?
It's like just own that and now get into
but I'm representing the truth. Why are
you mad about that? Why aren't we
talking about the veracity of the
claims? like she has an avenue to slap
him around way harder in my opinion, but
she's not taking it. And so I don't know
if she's not taking it because she does
have a little bit of guilt around like,
okay, numbers do factor into my
thinking, which is perfectly fine.
Numbers factor into my thinking in terms
of, okay, what are going to be the
topics that the audience cares about?
You need to take into consideration that
you're in this like two-way dance. I'm
not going to like I would love to talk
about video games and TCG more, but it's
it just doesn't work with the channel. I
would have to do that as a separate
channel if I wanted to do that. And if I
was on that channel and I wanted to talk
about politics, I'd remind myself, bro,
you you have a channel for that. That's
just being honest about the way that the
dynamic works. I don't know if she's
spinning herself, if she's trying to
spin her audience, if she just doesn't
want to talk about that part of it or
she knows that people will run with that
and and not talk about the veracity of
the claims. But that would be my advice
to her is like just focus on the
veracity of the claims. Get people to go
after the argument and stay focused on
that.
>> I don't know. I think it's a spin
conversation in general cuz I think now
we're talking about how much more money
she's making versus what she's actually
talking about. And I think that that in
general is a way to I don't want to say
defame her like it's definition.
>> No, that's what he's trying to do. He's
trying to get people to not take her
seriously to say listen the way that
you're going after this is obviously
money motivated. I think there are a ton
of people that are predisposed to
dislike Candace that are going to like
run with that narrative. What I'm saying
is she's got a trump card that she can
play to shut that down and she's not
playing it.
>> And so the question becomes, okay, well,
given that there's a way better
argument, why aren't you playing that
from that perspective? She's got a much
better card to play and she's not
playing it. What I want to see is when
the quote unquote facts come out and
they like disagree with the way that she
feels, what will she do? Because if
she's like, "Wow, crazy. I really felt
like this is true, but this is true, and
I'm going to go with the facts." Or is
it going to be endless conspiracy brain
rot where it's like no matter what you
show her? She's like, "No, no, no, but
this feels true." Like the Egyptian
plane thing. When pressed, she's going
to say, "I have no idea what it is." But
there is like this emotive radiation
coming off of her that the Egyptian
plane thing means something.
>> And so what happens if it's proven, air
quotes, that nothing, coincidence,
whatever, there's nothing there. No
problem.
>> In the past, she's backed off claims
when she got pressed. She mentioned that
in her Eric Kirk her Erica Kirk sit down
that there was some things about Turning
Point that she said then they kind of
gave her clarifying oh this person and
she's not affiliated and she was like
okay but he was acting like he was so
that's why I reacted that way. So I
don't want to say she said my bad and
walked it back but she clarified at
least those points where she misstepped
>> that you're going to be able to
delineate between core claims and
satellite claims and she'll give on
satellite claims and the odds that she
gives. This is my prediction and if I'm
wrong, I will gladly update my mental
model. But I'm going to guess satellite
claims she'll let go of, core claims,
not so much.
>> We'll see. This is all going to play out
like Tyler Robinson is going to be put
on trial and we are going to find out
what the justice system thinks of
whether he did this or not. And then
we'll be able to see if she's like, "No
way, don't buy it. Jury bias, whatever,
whatever, whatever." Or if she's like,
"Oh, wow. Look at that. I have to update
my mental." Because that's a core claim,
right? If if what the justice system
ends up saying is Tyler Robinson acted
alone, will Candace Owens update her
mental model and say, "Wow, I guess
Tyler Robinson did act alone. In fact,
play this clip back in a year or
whatever when the trial's over because I
want to see." And then because I am
obsessed with trying to figure out cause
and effect, I will certainly update my
Candace Owens mental model if she proves
me wrong and is like, "Oh, yeah,