Podcast Summary: "CAUGHT RED HANDED: Harley Pasternak | Ryan Reynolds’ Subpoena" (Episode 177)
Host: Candace Owens
Release Date: April 15, 2025

Introduction

In Episode 177 of her podcast Candace, Candace Owens delves into a series of controversial and investigative topics, focusing primarily on allegations surrounding fitness trainer Harley Pasternak and a complex legal situation involving Ryan Reynolds. Throughout the episode, Owens presents her research, interviews, and listener submissions to unpack these high-profile cases.

Allegations Against Harley Pasternak

Investigative Claims:
Candace Owens launches a detailed investigation into Harley Pasternak, a well-known fitness trainer, suggesting that he may be fabricating aspects of his personal history. She questions Pasternak's claims about his family's Holocaust survival and his ancestral ties, implying potential deceit aimed at establishing a victim narrative.

Notable Points:

• Genealogical Doubts: Owens points out inconsistencies in Pasternak's portrayal of his grandmother, Lucy Pasternak, asserting that there is no verifiable record of her survival from Auschwitz. She states, "I like to fact check things. I think that's okay, right?" (12:45)

• Family Background: The host explores Pasternak's familial connections, revealing discrepancies in public records regarding his parents' last names and marital history. She notes, "Harley was born Harley Freyman. Harley is not a bloodline Pasternick. He's a Fryman." (25:30)

• Public Image vs. Private Life: Owens contrasts Pasternak's public persona with her findings, suggesting a deliberate effort to obscure his true heritage and family background.

Listener Contributions:
A listener recounts a personal experience of dating Pasternak, claiming he mentioned his grandfather won a Nobel Prize. Owens scrutinizes this claim, questioning its validity and relevance to Pasternak's authenticity.

Candace's Conclusion:
Owens concludes that Pasternak's narrative may be a strategic embellishment to craft a specific public image. She warns listeners to approach Pasternak with skepticism, emphasizing the importance of verifying personal histories presented by public figures.

Ryan Reynolds’ Subpoena and the Justin Baldoni Case

Overview:
The episode shifts focus to a legal matter involving Ryan Reynolds, intertwined with the case of Justin Baldoni. Owens discusses the involvement of Stephanie Jones, a publicist, and raises questions about the legitimacy of a subpoena related to the case.

Key Points:

• Stephanie Jones’ Role: Owens criticizes Jones for allegedly mishandling confidential information, suggesting that the subpoena she claims to be complying with may be fabricated. She states, "I believe the New York Times released their article on the same day. December 20th is when all of this started and fired up." (45:10)

• Subpoena Validity: The host questions the timing and authenticity of the subpoena, noting discrepancies between the alleged date of issuance and the actual timeline of legal filings. She remarks, "A subpoena means a judge signed off on it." (47:25)

• Implications for the Cases: Owens posits that the questionable legitimacy of the subpoena could undermine both the New York Times' reporting and Blake Lively's legal stance, potentially benefiting Justin Baldoni in the process.

Candace's Analysis:
Owens suggests that the subpoena may be a strategic move to discredit the involved parties, urging listeners to remain skeptical of the information presented by the media and legal representatives in this saga.

Discussion on Hollywood and CIA Connections

Historical Context:
Owens broadens the discussion to explore alleged connections between Hollywood figures and the CIA, referencing the infamous MKULTRA program. She implies that there is a deeper, possibly sinister interplay between entertainment elites and government agencies.

Highlights:

• Family Ties: The host mentions Joe Pasternick, a patriarch with purported connections to Paramount Studios and the CIA, suggesting that Hollywood is influenced by governmental experiments and covert operations.

• Cultural Manipulation: Owens theorizes that the entertainment industry serves as a conduit for social engineering, shaping public perception and societal norms through targeted narratives and media control.

Critical Perspective:
While presenting these claims, Owens maintains a tone of skepticism towards established institutions, encouraging her audience to question the authenticity and motivations behind Hollywood’s public image.

Listener Engagement and Community Feedback

Audience Interactions:
Throughout the episode, Owens reads and responds to listener comments, many of which echo her concerns about uncovering hidden truths behind public figures and institutions. Comments reflect a shared distrust in mainstream narratives and a desire for deeper investigative journalism.

Examples:

• A listener expresses support for Owens' scrutiny of Pasternak, stating, "I love that you're not taking your foot off of Harley's neck."

• Another commenter highlights similarities between global leaders, crime families, and national security agencies, indicating a belief in overarching conspiracies influencing world events.

Candace’s Response:
Owens acknowledges the input, reinforcing her commitment to uncovering what she perceives as hidden agendas and encouraging continued vigilance among her listeners.

Closing Thoughts: The Battle for Free Speech and Academic Integrity

Harvard vs. Trump Administration:
In her final remarks, Owens discusses Harvard University's defiance against the Trump administration's demands to alter campus policies related to free speech and activism. She frames this as a critical stand for academic freedom and resistance against governmental overreach.

Key Arguments:

• Anti-Defamation League (ADL) Influence: Owens criticizes the ADL's role in shaping definitions of anti-Semitism, arguing that it stifles legitimate academic debate and speech freedoms.

• Free Speech Concerns: She warns that the administration's pressure on universities sets a dangerous precedent for censorship and the suppression of dissenting voices.

Candace's Call to Action:
Owens urges listeners to support institutions like Harvard in their fight for autonomy and to remain vigilant against policies that may infringe upon constitutional rights and free expression.

Disclaimer

The views and statements expressed in this summary reflect the content presented in Episode 177 of Candace Owens' podcast. The allegations and claims discussed are those made by the host and are presented for informational purposes. Listeners are encouraged to conduct their own research and consider multiple perspectives on these topics.