The Murder of Charlie Kirk: The Case of Candace Owens: How to Lose Millions of Dollars Lying and Running Your Mouth: Part Two

Summary

Murder Sheet: "The Murder of Charlie Kirk: The Case of Candace Owens—How to Lose Millions of Dollars Lying and Running Your Mouth: Part Two"

Date: July 16, 2026
Hosts: Journalist Áine Cain and attorney Kevin Greenlee

---

Episode Overview

In this episode, Áine Cain and Kevin Greenlee continue their deep dive into the aftermath of the Charlie Kirk assassination, focusing on a major defamation lawsuit against political commentator Candace Owens. The episode unpacks how conspiracy theories and unchecked claims proliferate in true crime media, examines the specific allegations at the heart of the Harpole v. Owens case, and critically assesses the conduct and responsibilities of creators with large platforms. Through legal analysis and journalistic reflection, the hosts probe how reckless speculation can spiral into actionable defamation—with severe financial and reputational consequences.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Background of the Lawsuit and Main Figures

[02:17] Kevin introduces the subject: a recent lawsuit filed by Brian Harpole, a security consultant, against Candace Owens (and Mitchell Snow) related to defamatory claims made in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s murder.

• Who is involved?
  • Candace Owens: Conservative media personality, described in the complaint as a prolific conspiracy theorist with millions of followers across platforms.
  • Brian Harpole: Texas-based head of Integrity Security Solutions, responsible for Kirk’s security at the fatal Utah Valley University event.
  • Mitchell Snow: Owens’ alleged source for the conspiracy claims, a military contact.
• Allegation: Owens falsely accused Harpole of conspiring to assassinate Kirk, allegedly relying on an obviously fabricated story provided by Snow.

2. Free Speech and Defamation—Journalistic Ethics

[05:18] Anya discusses the tension between safeguarding free speech and protecting against defamatory, harmful lies.

• She recounts media training at Insider, underscoring the legal and ethical imperatives to avoid publishing false damaging claims.

  • “Free speech does not cover lying and defamation. ... If we get to a point where too much is considered defamatory ... people have their free speech chilled and I definitely don't want to see that happen.” – Anya Cain [05:18]

• Kevin notes the dual risk: legal costs and loss of trust.

  • “If you're putting out defamatory content, people are going to lose faith in you.” – Kevin Greenlee [06:24]

3. The Complaint’s Characterization of Candace Owens

[07:15], [12:10]
Anya reads directly from the legal complaint, which attempts to undermine Owens’ credibility by emphasizing her role as a content creator allegedly unconstrained by established editorial practices or ethics.

• Repeats that Owens is “not a journalist” (per the lawsuit).
• Highlights the monetization of her platform and lack of oversight.
• Quote: “The more followers she has and the more views her contents receives, her content receives, the more money she makes. She’s not subject to any editing or oversight or professional ethics. The accuracy of her statements is irrelevant to her income.” [12:10]

Anya and Kevin discuss the inherent ambiguity in defining “journalist” in new media, insisting that it should be a matter of how rigorously facts are checked—regardless of the platform.

4. Summary of the Alleged Defamation

[24:42], [29:53]
Kevin summarizes the core complaint against Owens:

• Candace Owens allegedly targeted Harpole as a co-conspirator in Kirk’s assassination, ramping up her claims from general conspiracy theorizing to an “escalated campaign.”

• Owens claimed to have received a credible tip from Snow about a military meeting at Fort Huachuca, implying Harpole’s direct participation.

• Key Point:

  • “...Owens is the most high profile spreader of baseless Charlie Kirk conspiracy theories. But she is not the only one. Her actions have encouraged ... other people to jump on the Charlie Kirk conspiracy bandwagon.” [24:42]

Anya underscores the importance of supporting any extraordinary claims with extraordinary evidence, not just “vibes.”

5. Analysis of Spreading Conspiracies

[27:24], [29:53]
The spread of conspiracy theories, especially around high-profile crimes, is dissected.

• Anya articulates the role of polarization and online echo chambers in fueling wild speculation, exploiting the controversy around Kirk (a polarizing figure himself).

6. Evidentiary Standards & "Actual Malice"

[40:08], [41:46], [45:30]
The hosts walk through Owens’ specific podcast claims, breaking down their evidentiary failings:

• Owens supposedly relied on one unverifiable source (Snow), without corroborating evidence.

• Harpole provides concrete travel documents disproving Owens’ claims; Owens allegedly ignores or dismisses these.

• Quote: “The claim that Harpole was present at Fort Huchuca ... is verifiably false, as Harpole’s travel records plainly place him in Dallas, Texas... Owens had access to these records, but dismissed them without any investigation.” [44:22] – Read by Anya Cain

• Kevin and Anya both see this as meeting “actual malice” standard:

  • Kevin: “She knew what she was saying was untrue and she said it anyway.” [55:27]
  • Anya: “This is actual malice.” [45:33]

7. Campaign of Defamation and Public Reaction

[47:55], [48:12]
Owens didn’t merely level accusations once—she repeated and amplified her claims across platforms, despite a lack of evidence.

• Examples include questioning whether Harpole ever made a 911 call, alleging “lies”, and speculating about secret meetings.
• Listeners (“Louise Trump” et al.) took these claims at face value, significantly damaging Harpole’s reputation.
  • “Why was Brian Harpole leaving a military operation meeting days before Charlie assassination? This is absolutely wild and it needs answers.” [46:42] – Social media reaction cited by Kevin

8. The Trap for Targets—Refusing Engagement Feeds More Misinformation

[56:02], [59:59]
Owens allegedly used Harpole’s refusal to engage as further “evidence” of guilt, a classic tactic in such campaigns. Anya explains how bad faith actors use requests for comment as a trap to generate more monetizable content.

• “When you perform for these people on their shows, you are giving them money. So I think he had the right instincts there.” – Anya Cain [61:12]

9. The Role of Verification in Journalism & The Dangers of Reckless Speculation

[40:08], [49:50], [65:00]
Anya deconstructs how real journalists corroborate sources and contextualize information—contrasting this with Owens’ methodology.

• “If you're not a journalist but you have a public platform, I would argue that you still owe it to people to be very methodical and careful about what you put out there.” [41:46]

Kevin notes that conspiracies often rest on cherry-picked facts taken out of context, which a diligent reporter would further investigate.

10. Legal Status and Judicial Recusal

[67:51]
Update: All seven judges/magistrates in the Middle District of Tennessee recused themselves from the case—a rare occurrence.

• Both hosts express bafflement, refusing to speculate, but noting the unusual development and promising to investigate further.

---

Memorable Quotes

• “Free speech does not cover lying and defamation. ... If we get to a point where too much is considered defamatory ... people have their free speech chilled and I definitely don't want to see that happen.” – Anya Cain [05:18]
• “If you're putting out defamatory content, people are going to lose faith in you.” – Kevin Greenlee [06:24]
• “The more followers she has and the more views her contents receives, her content receives, the more money she makes. She’s not subject to any editing or oversight or professional ethics. The accuracy of her statements is irrelevant to her income.” – Anya Cain, reading from complaint [12:10]
• “Extraordinary claims, extraordinary conspiracies requirements, extraordinary evidence, or the very least evidence.” – Anya Cain [43:00]
• “This is actual malice.” – Anya Cain [45:33]
• “She knew what she was saying was untrue and she said it anyway.” – Kevin Greenlee [55:27]
• “When you perform for these people on their shows, you are giving them money. So I think he had the right instincts there.” – Anya Cain [61:12]
• “It's just that simple.” – Anya Cain, on the obligation to fact-check before publishing [49:12]
• “We're through the looking glass now.” – Kevin Greenlee [53:59]

---

Key Timestamps

• [02:17] – Introduction to the lawsuit and core players
• [05:18] – Discussion on free speech vs. defamation, journalistic ethics
• [07:15] – Anya presents direct complaint excerpts describing Owens and Snow
• [24:42] – Kevin summarizes the factual allegations
• [29:53] – Spread of conspiracies in high-profile cases
• [40:08] – Owens’ sourcing and verification failures analyzed
• [45:30] – Discussion of “actual malice” standard
• [47:29] – Public reaction citing Owens’ claims
• [56:02], [59:59] – The feedback loop of engagement and defamation
• [67:51] – Announcement of universal judicial recusal

---

Tone and Style

The hosts blend legal analysis and journalistic reflection with moments of incredulity and pointed criticism, especially towards bad faith media actors and the toxic economy of conspiracy-laden content. They maintain a critical, at times exasperated, tone when describing the scale of reckless speculation and its damage to individuals and the information ecosystem.

---

Conclusion & Takeaways

The episode provides a meticulous breakdown of how a sensational conspiracy narrative, untethered from evidence and accountability, can escalate into a high-stakes defamation suit. Using the Owens lawsuit as a lens, Cain and Greenlee illustrate the dangerous financial and reputational risks of platforming baseless allegations and the ethical responsibility that comes with large audiences—regardless of one’s “journalistic” status.

The case also raises broader questions about the transition away from institutional journalism, the incentives driving influencer media, and the legal frameworks meant to hold reckless communicators accountable.

---

For listeners seeking a clear, critical examination of the Harpole v. Owens lawsuit—and a primer on how to responsibly navigate breaking news, conspiracy claims, and the boundaries of protected speech—this episode is essential listening.

Transcript

[Anya Cain]

Take your business to the next level. The fastest growing businesses are winning because they're delegating smarter to talented freelancers. That's where Upwork comes in.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Upwork is a one stop platform for finding, hiring and paying expert talent to come do the jobs you need to get done right. They boast Talent across over 125 categories Marketing, Data and analytics, software development, and much more.

[Anya Cain]

Grow your team without draining your budget or giving yourself a massive headache. With upwork you can hire a specialized freelancer fast.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Upwork is going to help your business scale up fast. You're going to be delegating and getting tremendous value from freelancers you can trust.

[Anya Cain]

Browse profiles, review past work, let Upwork handle all of that along with contracts and payments and start working with flexible, high quality freelance talent for your crucial one off projects and for ongoing support. This is an easy win for your business. With Upwork's business plus, you'll even access the top 1% of talent on Upwork. I myself have experience working on Upwork as a freelancer. Back in the day I used to write all kinds of romance novels across sub genres for different publishing concerns. On Upwork. I had a ton of fun. Heck, sometimes I'd take my laptop on the Metro north and right there until we pulled into Grand Central. I earned some spending money. Plus it was nice to help these small businesses thrive and scale. If you like certain sub genres of romance novels, you may have even read some of my Anonymous work.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Visit Upwork.com right now and post your job for free. That is Upwork.com to connect with top talent ready to help your business grow. That's upwork.com upwork.com

[Progressive Insurance Announcer]

you're listening to this podcast, so I know you've got a curious mind. Here's a helpful fact you might not know yet. Drivers who switch and save with Progressive save over $900 on average. Pop over to progressive.com answer some questions and you'll get a quick quote with discounts that are easy to come by. In fact, 99% of their auto customers earn at least one discount. Visit progressive.com and see if you can enjoy a little cash back. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates national average 12 month savings of $946 by new customers surveyed who saved with Progressive between June 2024 and May 2025. Potential savings will vary.

[Kevin Greenlee]

I'm Kevin and we're here to talk about how a recent defamation lawsuit gives us some key insights into how the coverage of the murder of Charlie Kirk has been shaped behind the Scenes Content

[Anya Cain]

Warning this episode contains discussion of murder and violence.

[Kevin Greenlee]

So as I mentioned, there's been a lawsuit filed this related to the Charlie Kirk case. It is a lawsuit involving Candace Owens, who is perhaps the figure most closely associated with the coverage of the case that takes the angle that there was a conspiracy. I think this suit really gives some interesting behind the scenes looks at how the coverage has been shaped, how someone like Ms. Owens, who spread some of these conspiracy oriented ideas, how she vets her work before she shares it with the world. So I'd like to go into it. Keep in mind we did explain in our previous episode some of the concepts and ideas of defamation that might be helpful to be aware of. And the other thing to keep in mind is at this time the suit has been filed. Ms. Owens has not yet responded to it. So we would just be talking about the allegations and claims made against her. I presume she does have an answer of some sort to these and we're certainly be on the lookout for that when it comes out.

[Anya Cain]

My name is Anya Cain, I'm a journalist.

[Kevin Greenlee]

And I'm Kevin Greenlee. I'm an attorney.

[Anya Cain]

And this is the Murder Sheet.

[Kevin Greenlee]

We're a true crime podcast focused on original reporting, interviews and deep dives into murder cases. We're the Murder Sheet and this is the murder of Charlie Kirk, the case of Candace Owens, how to lose millions of dollars lying and running Your Mouth Part 2.

[Anya Cain]

It.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Well, Anya, in the last one that we did, I feel I droned on a lot. So I really hope you're able to jump in and give us some insights and analysis is how some of this strikes you as a reporter. I also think it might be useful to get, maybe you could read some of this complaint and I'll just give you a heads up in a minute, I might ask you to read something that's on the bottom of page six, seven of our notes.

[Anya Cain]

Okay. I mean, I'll kind of say, like to start off with, I mean, I'm very much of the belief that, you know, free speech does not cover lying and defamation. You know, the, the lies that lead to defamation. I, I also believe that, you know, I, I feel like if we get to a point where too much is considered defamatory or the lines are blurred too much, then we're going to get into a situation where people have their free speech chilled and I definitely don't want to see that happen. So I'm very curious going into this. I'm not familiar with all of the ins and outs of the case, but I'll be curious to learn about the facts from you. I mean, I can tell you when I was at Insider, we did like I believe it was. I don't know if it was quarterly or monthly. I think it was more quarterly. We did, you know, libel and defamation trainings there where we would talk about that. Because any media company is a business. You want to, as far as the, the in house counsel is concerned, you want to make sure your reporters aren't defaming people and getting sued and possibly destroying the business.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Yeah, there's two reasons for that. First of all, if it's wrong, if someone successfully sues you for defamation, it's going to cost a lot of money. And secondly, if you're putting out defamatory content, people are going to lose faith in you.

[Anya Cain]

It's unethical and it's wrong. It's unethical, it's bad, it's evil in my opinion. So I think, you know, but I'm curious to see, is this a case where it's a close call, Is this a case where, you know, it's obvious defamation. I just don't know. And I'll be curious to hear.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Okay. This involves a case that was filed against Candace Owens and Mitchell Snow by a man named Brian Harpel. I think obviously the first question is, who is Candace Owens? Who is Harpal, who is this Mitchell Snow? Anya, can you start reading with the words Candace Owens?

[Anya Cain]

Sure. And this is at the bottom of seven. So. So Candace Owens, for those of you who are blissfully unaware, is a pretty influential, well known social media personality, online personality.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Well, she's described in this complaint. So.

[Anya Cain]

Oh, you want me to. This is from the complaint.

[Kevin Greenlee]

This is from the.

[Anya Cain]

Oh, this is pretty funny. Then quote, Candace Owens, a wealthy, influential and well known conspiracy theorist with a massive social media following, falsely accused Brian Harpole of conspiring to assassinate Charlie Kirk. She did so in coordination with Mitchell Snow who fed Owens a completely and obviously fabricated story about Bright that Brian Harpole met with army intelligence officers and Erica Kirk, Charlie's now widow, at Fort Huachuca to plan the murder. Unsurprisingly, this lawsuit follows. Plaintiff Brian Harpal is a citizen and resident of Texas. He is the founder and head of Integrity Security Solutions, a private security firm. In or around 2018, Harpole began working for the late Charlie Kirk with Integrity Solutions providing security for Turning Point USA and protective services for Kirk from 2022 to 2025. Integrity Solutions provide these services for Turning Point USA and Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University on September 10, 2025, where Kirk was fatally shot. Harpal seeks damages. Harpal seeks damages in excess of $75,000 on his behalf and on behalf of his closely held company, Integrity Solutions. Defendant Candace Owens is a citizen and resident of Williamson County, Tennessee. She's a public commentator, podcaster, and social media influencer with a substantial following on platforms including X, formerly Twitter, and YouTube. She's neither a journalist nor a reporter. She publishes content through her podcast and X account. Real Candace Owens is the host of her podcast, Candace, which is published in video form on platforms such as YouTube. Real Candace O, Rumble Rumble.com C/real Candace. Oh, and her website, Candace Owens.com.

[Kevin Greenlee]

okay, let's. Let's stop there for a minute, even before we get too far into who Mitchell Snow is. So it establishes that Mr. Harpal worked for Charlie Kirk. He did some security work for Mr. Kirk. And he's also saying Candace Owens essentially said, I plotted this murder. I was involved in plotting this murder. That clearly, in and of itself, is an enormously damaging thing to say about a human being, that they plotted the murder of someone. And you could also imagine that would also be very damaging to a person's business. If you're a security business. If you're going to go somewhere, Anya, where you need security, I think you would think twice before hiring a security consultant who you believe plotted the murder of his previous boss.

[Anya Cain]

I think, yeah, it would be disastrous for your business. You're paying someone to protect you, and then if everyone else thinks actually they're not going to protect you, they're going to kill you, then that's kind of the opposite of what a security firm is supposed to do.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Yes. And also, you know, in some cases, people deemed to be journalists can get special privileges because of the importance of their work. This complaint is saying, hey, whatever Candace Owens is, she's not a journalist. She doesn't deserve any special privileges. And when it comes to whether or not a person is considered a journalist, it can be difficult because it's very easy to tell whether or not a person is an attorney, because if you're an attorney, you have your law school diploma on the wall. There's no journalist diploma. There's no journalist license. No. So that means almost anyone can make claims to be a journalist.

[Anya Cain]

Many do.

[Kevin Greenlee]

That doesn't necessarily mean you are a journalist.

[Anya Cain]

Journalism is a practice. It's what you do.

[Kevin Greenlee]

But now the question is, we've been introduced to Harpal. We've been introduced to Candace. Anya, can you go down to the bottom of page eight and read our introduction to Mitchell Snow.

[Anya Cain]

Defendant Mitchell Snow is a resident of Washington State. On December 8, 2025, Snow spoke with Owens. A Tennessee resident fed her a false story that Harpole was involved in a top secret meeting with high ranking military officials involving a plot to assassinate Charlie Kirk and authorized Owens to tell his false story on her podcast, which is filmed and recorded in Tennessee. Candace Owens is an entertainer. In recent years, her brand has been to use her sizable social media platform to spread salacious and mostly baseless stories to her millions of followers. These platforms are monetized. The more followers she has and the more views her contents receives, her content receives, the more money she makes. She's not subject to any editing or oversight or professional ethics. The accuracy of her statements is irrelevant to her income, I. E. She monetizes the defamation she slings.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Yeah, I want to jump in here again. ANI has been reading from this complaint and what we have there is pretty clearly a description of Candace Owens that is very carefully calculated to make her look as bad as possible. Like, this is the sort of person who would be likely to defame someone. I just ask you, please keep in mind, no matter what you agree with this assessment, whether you agree with this assessment of her or not, it's ultimately doesn't have much to do with whether or not she actually committed the defamation. It's just something lawyers do. Is that fair to say? Right?

[Anya Cain]

I mean, and like, as you know, I mean, I've been on both sides of it. So I've worked for a mainstream news publication, Business Insider, and it, you know, I mean, in doing so, I mean, like, it's odd because Business Insider, I think, was a great publication. I haven't worked there for many years, but loved it there. Worked with some great editors, some great reporters, had some really cool stories and pieces that I got to do. But, you know, we were digitally native. So for some of like the old time kind of like storied television and New York Times kind of things, we were the young upstarts. And you know, it was like, oh, well, you know, you guys came out of this kind of almost as a blog, and now you're like a news outlet. So, you know, even there, even though I would consider that very much mainstream news there can be like kind of like, well, you know, I guess you're doing journalism now, but you started off more as just kind of some guy's blog. And so now that I'm in podcasting, it's significantly worse because, you know, podcasting does not exactly convert legitimacy on oneself, especially as far as mainstream news reporters are concerned.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Far from it.

[Anya Cain]

And you know what? Frankly, it shouldn't because we look at cases like this for why. But I also feel like we are doing journalism. And the reason I say to that is even though we are using, utilizing the true crime podcast form to tell stories, we are doing things like our due diligence, we are obtaining documents, we are, we are trying to get both sides of it when possible. If someone's making a claim, we're trying to get the opposite side. And perhaps most importantly, when we're given information, if we cannot corroborate it, we're not running it. You know, if we get information from especially an anonymous source, those are dangerous. We're not just running things willy nilly where we're double checking, we're being diligent.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Well, I'll go further. We would never run anything from an anonymous source. If by anonymous source you mean someone who we don't even know who it is.

[Anya Cain]

No. Well, that. No. I mean, no one should do that. Is that what she did?

[Kevin Greenlee]

No. No.

[Anya Cain]

Okay. No. I mean, but people don't understand anonymous sources. They think, oh, the reporter doesn't know. We know who our anonymous sources are.

[Kevin Greenlee]

This summer, you need comfortable go anywhere pieces that are made with quality and care and affordability in mind. You need our wonderful sponsor.

[Anya Cain]

Quince is a brand that brings us a little luxury in our lives. For less. They'll have you sporting 100% European linen pants and shirts. These are perfectly light, breathable looks for the hotter months starting at just $34.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Or even super soft T shirts that you can wear all day. Or lightweight cotton sweaters for nighttime beach walks and bonfires. They even offer travel essentials and home goods.

[Anya Cain]

This summer, I've been constantly wearing their 100% European linen fit and flare midi dress in deep navy. I love it. I even Wore it to CrimeCon with a matching quince beret and some red high heels. I really love how summery and breathable it is. It's one of those dresses where I felt I looked really polished while also feeling comfortable even as I was trekking through all the twists and turns of Caesar's palace. The dress is flattering and affordable and I couldn't recommend it highly enough. It's my Go to Summer look right now.

[Kevin Greenlee]

All of their stuff is terrific and priced 50 to 80% less than similar brands. They cut costs by bypassing the middlemen. So no markups. Shop Quince today.

[Anya Cain]

Make your summer wardrobe easier. Go to quince.commsheet for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. Now available in Canada too. That's Q U I n c e.commsheet for free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.commsheet this message is sponsored by Greenlight.

[Kevin Greenlee]

There are scammers everywhere looking to rip you and your family off. Sometimes it can feel like all of us are getting inundated with these scams. Constantly. It's overwhelming.

[Anya Cain]

Families lost 12.5 billion to fraud last year. And as true crime podcasters, we can tell you that fraudsters and scammers are always looking to prey on the vulnerable.

[Kevin Greenlee]

But with Greenlight Family Shield you can keep your family from becoming a statistic. You can fight back against these scammers.

[Anya Cain]

Greenlight Family Shield is an app that keeps your whole family safe from scams and fraud. It recognizes that what impacts one family member impacts a whole family. So you can shield your grandparents, your kids, your spouse, yourself, everybody.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Greenlight Family Shield keeps your family safe with financial account monitoring, credit locking and real time alerts that start whenever potential fraud is detected. Oh, and they also offer up to a million dollars of identity theft coverage.

[Anya Cain]

Take charge of your family's safety, financial security and well being. Today. Set up Greenlight Family Shield in just minutes we have. We absolutely love the peace of mind we get from checking in on our app and knowing that Greenlight Family Shield is monitoring all of our financial accounts. If something goes wrong, we know they'll have our backs.

[Kevin Greenlee]

We use Greenlight. And you should too.

[Anya Cain]

Scammers aren't waiting, neither should you. Go to greenlight.com msheet right now to get started. That's greenlight.com msheet greenlight.com msheet

[Progressive Insurance Announcer]

this episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Do you ever think about switching insurance companies to see if you could save some cash? Progressive makes it easy to see if you could save when you bundle your home and auto policies. Try [e-mail] Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates. Potential savings will vary. Not available in all states.

[Anya Cain]

But you know, it's very easy for someone to go anonymous and say I'll tell you something and then you just run it. You want to have multiple people corroborating saying the same thing. You want to have documents, screenshots, text. You want the whole the works when you're doing this. And so I feel like we do journalism on this show because we have the fundamental, ethical and process wise framework that would be the same across different types of outlets.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Yeah. And I'll be curious to see if you think Ms. Owens lived up to the standards you just described.

[Anya Cain]

Yeah. So I'm, I'm just gonna say I'm not willing to say someone's not a journalist just because they're on YouTube instead of on the television. Instead, instead of on.

[Kevin Greenlee]

It's more about the standards and how they do their work.

[Anya Cain]

What are you actually doing? Because I'm going to tell you there are unethical reporters in tv. There are unethical reporters in print. Okay. And I don't consider them particularly legitimate, but that doesn't mean that no one there is legitimate. It's, it's a, it's a case by case basis.

[Kevin Greenlee]

So with all that said, let's get a little bit more context.

[Progressive Insurance Announcer]

Truckers aren't just moving goods. They're making sure bakers get their chocolate chips and hotels get their tiny soaps. But truckers can't do this if they're not on the road. That's why Progressive has over 360 heavy truck employees to help truckers stay on time and on track. Quote Truck Insurance today in as little as eight minutes at progressive commercial.com progressive casualty insurance company and affiliates on Ms. Owens.

[Kevin Greenlee]

And I'm going to ask you to read paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 from this complaint.

[Anya Cain]

Throughout her career, Owens has demonstrated a pattern of seeking public attention and media exposure. In an apparent effort to maintain relevance and increase engagement on her platform, Owens repeatedly makes inflammatory and highly controversial statements. For example, Owens has been publicly quoted as stating Jewish people were the ones that were trading us black people. Jewish people were in control of the slave trade. And that Mengle's twin experiments were actually bizarre propaganda. In 2019, Owens hosted a podcast on PragerU's YouTube channel where she interviewed conservative figures and provided commentary on current events. From 2021 to 2024, Owens hosted her show Candace on the Daily Wire. But in 2024, the Daily Wire terminated its relationship with Owns following months of controversy arising from anti Semitic remarks she made on the program.

[Kevin Greenlee]

So now we know a bit more about Ms. Owens. Despite that information. I don't know, maybe because of it, she's very popular, according to this complaint. I'll read this. Owens live streams her podcast every weekday to almost 6 million YouTube subscribers and approximately 523,000 Rumble followers. Post her podcast in video form to a Twitter account for 7.8 million followers. And she also has an audio version of her podcast that goes out to tens of millions of people. So she's a very Popular person. She has a very wide audience now. In this day and age, just because someone has a big audience doesn't necessarily mean they're popular, because there are people who, like, hate watch somebody. Yeah, that's true, but this is a person, at the very least, has a big platform.

[Anya Cain]

She's reaching a lot of people with that.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Why don't we talk a little bit more about her? Why don't you read paragraph 18?

[Anya Cain]

Owens regularly uses her podcast as well as her X account to promote and discuss conspiracy theories, often selecting topics that are controversial or trending to attract views and increase engagement. Owens has used her podcasts and social media accounts to perform platform baseless and malicious conspiracies, such as. One, Brigitte Macron, the First lady of France, is secretly transgender. Two, the moon landing was fake. Three, a slew of anti Semitic conspiracy theories, including, but not limited to that Shabbat Lubovitch, a sect of Hasidic Jewry, is dangerous, responsible for the Iran war, and is building secret tunnels throughout the United States. And that prime. That Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu was responsible for the attacks of September 11, 2001, as well as the general Holocaust denial in the form of downplaying and questioning the extent of the Third Reich's eradication of Jewish people. This is only a small sample of the erroneous and malicious rhetoric Owens advances. She also expands her reach by retweeting other conspiracy theorists and those who otherwise monetize hate and malice. Okay, she sounds fun.

[Kevin Greenlee]

All of that establishes that she has, shall we say, a tenuous relationship with the truth.

[Anya Cain]

And if any of you guys email me and, oh, but, you know, yeah, that's bad. But, you know, just don't. Just save it like, once, people. I mean, this is. I'm sorry, like, already. Really, really. Like, we're like, I don't know. I know. She's got another defamation suit, I believe, with the. With the first lady of France. Right?

[Kevin Greenlee]

Yeah, I believe she does this.

[Anya Cain]

I just think this is so appalling, and I think it's a really disturbing commentary on where our society is, that this person has a platform at all, and that people aren't simply backing away slowly while saying, get some help.

[Kevin Greenlee]

So I think at this point we've established Candace Owens huge platform, big audience, presumably generates a pretty large income from this audience.

[Anya Cain]

Yeah.

[Kevin Greenlee]

So the next question is, okay, we know who she is. What. What the heck is this lawsuit about?

[Anya Cain]

And I'll say this. I mean, I'm disgusted by what I just read. Like, downplaying the Holocaust. I mean, what is wrong with you? But at the same time, like, I'm also open minded to the extent of you can be absolutely disgusting and I find your views abhorrent, but that doesn't mean you necessarily commit defamation in another specific instance. Right? We have to be intellectually honest.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Yes. So I'm going to read a bit from this complaint here that actually explains what the gist of this complaint is. Quote. On September 10, 2025, Charlie Kirk was assassinated while speaking at Utah Valley University. Law enforcement identified Tyler Robinson as the assassin and he is currently facing capital murder charges. To this day, neither law enforcement nor any other serious person has suggested that Robinson acted on behalf of or in connection with any other person or entity. On the day of the assassination, Brian Harpel and his company Integrity Solutions were responsible for providing security for Charlie Kirk. Neither Harpel nor his company had foreknowledge of, were involved in, acted negligently with respect to or participated in any cover up of the assassination. The lack of evidence indicating foul play did not stop commentators from crafting their own conspiracy theories surrounding the assassination. Commonly spread theories included one, the existence of a second shooter who utilized a trapdoor and tunnel system to gain access to Kirk's speaking engagement, two, Kirk was killed by a small explosive device instead of a bullet, three, the quick deconstruction of the crime scene was done to cover up a larger conspiracy and four, the United States government intended to assassinate Kirk with Harpel involved in the alleged scheme. Owens is the most high profile spreader of baseless Charlie Kirk conspiracy theories. But she is not the only one. Her actions have encouraged and emboldened and otherwise given cover to other people to jump on the Charlie Kirk conspiracy band wagon. Why don't we stop there and just talk about the spread of conspiracy theories? I think it's something we see in any hope high profile crime. And I think it's especially prevalent when you have a situation where there's something for people on the Internet to pour over and study. In the Delphi case, it's the recording guys down the hill and this image of bridge guy for people to study. I think in this case, all of us who were on the Internet that day, whether we wanted to or not, we repeatedly saw footage of Mr. Kirk being shot and murdered. That footage was all over the Internet from different angles and I think a lot of people started like scrutinizing it frame by frame and coming up with their own kooky theories.

[Anya Cain]

Yeah, and it's of course like the people who are like, well, you know, I'm not an expert in this move on. But the people who don't care that they're not an expert in anything are the ones who have been very loud about, you know, the discrepancies they're finding, you know, and it's. I just, the whole thing is so foolish. I also think, I mean, it should be stated, Charlie Kirk was also like Candace Owens, a conservative activist and Internet commentator and, you know, media personality. Is that correct?

[Kevin Greenlee]

Yeah.

[Anya Cain]

And they knew each other, they were friends, they're friendly, they had some kind of connection. So there's also this interesting element here where I think, you know, it's a situation where Kirk also had a lot of, you know, controversies to him. And, and you had people who really, absolutely loved him in the public. They agreed with his views, they agreed with his opinions, they liked what he was doing. You had people who were probably somewhat in the middle. You had people who are probably mostly unaware of him. And then you had people who strongly disagreed, did not like him, you know, did not, did not care for him in the least. And when you have a situation like this happening to somebody who's not only a high profile public figure in some sectors, I'm, I don't want to overstate this because I think some people just weren't that familiar with him until he was murdered. But I think for other people, he was very well known and they might have really liked him. It might have been a very polarized view of him. Some, some like, some, some love, some hate. And I think when you have that, you have the, you know, potential for politics to get injected here and very easily because he's a political figure. And I think that also kind of incentivizes people because I think what. When you combined politics with a case like this and then conspiratorial thinking, people are essentially trying to mold it to something that will fit what they want it to be and their worldviews. And actually, you know, I see this frankly on both sides, because I see, I see like. But I mean, certainly it's interesting to me that I do see it very heavily on the conservative side. And then I also see conservatives who are saying there's no, there's no conspiracy theory. That's ridiculous. So it's like there's a division even amongst people who might be all right wing or might be all left wing, but you see this kind of, I don't know, kind of fracture different communities in a way.

[Kevin Greenlee]

I'm going to read some more from this complaint. I Might jump around a little bit. Quote. Shortly after the assassination, Owens began disseminating content asserting that Kirk was betrayed by individuals close to him, that the government orchestrated a cover up of the assassination. The Turning Point USA was implicated in the event and advancing numerous additional conspiracy theories suggesting that someone other than Tyler Robinson was involved in the murder. What began is Owen's generalized conspiracy theories about the assassination quickly escalated into a sustained campaign to publish and disseminate dozens of social media posts and YouTube videos falsely implicating Harpole in Kirk's assassination, end quote.

[Anya Cain]

I mean, like, here's the thing, to me, the difference between a conspiracy and a conspiracy theory. I think theory is the wrong word. Theory implies some level of rigor is being applied to something. Conspiracy claims may be a better way to put it is facts. If you have evidence that Kirk was indeed set up by people who knew him and there's more to it and there's government involvement, that's something that is very important for that to come out, if that's true. Because that kind of fractures trust in the government. It's an injustice, it's an appalling thing. And we need to know who's really to blame. And if they're framing an innocent man, all of that's all very good. So let's have out with it. But the difference inevitably is you're just saying this based on what you want to be true and vibes and not. And so I'll be very curious with what evidence she's able to procure to back up these claims.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Quote. On November 17, 2025, after Owens and other conspiracy theorists had already implicated Tarpol and his team in the assassination, Harpel appeared on the Sean Ryan show solely to respond to and rebut the defamatory statements. On or about November 25, 2025, Harpel was interviewed by Gary Milton with Paramount Tactical for the purpose of rebuttoning more defamatory statements. As of the date of this complaint, the two podcast appearances remain isolated responses undertaken by him to defend his reputation in response to defamatory statements made by others, end quote. So why are they talking in the middle of this complaint about the podcast he went on? I think if you listen to our previous episodes, you probably have a good guess. This is all about whether or not Harpel is going to be classified as some kind of a limited purpose public figure or a private figure. If he is classified as a limited purpose public figure, it's going to be harder for him to win the case. If he's a private figure, it'd be easier for him to win the case. So he's saying, yes, I did go on podcast. It was just two and I had to do it in order to defend my business. It wasn't something I willingly chose to inject myself into, therefore I should not be considered a limited purpose public figure. Does that make sense?

[Anya Cain]

Yes, it does.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Then there's some more in this document about that, but let me jump ahead.

[Anya Cain]

I'll just say, like from what they said with his profile, if what his attorneys are saying is truthful and correct, it does not sound to me like he is a limited purpose public figure. It sounds to me that he is a private individual who was thrust into this situation. His lack of social media presence, you know, having some accounts and never posting on them, no public platform to really rebut things, not seeking publicity, with the exception of responding to some of these things, that really sounds to me like a private individual. What do you think?

[Kevin Greenlee]

Yes.

[Anya Cain]

Yeah, I don't know how the court will find, but I think. And there might be more to it that we're going to hear, but just from what's been described so far. Yeah,

[Kevin Greenlee]

I'll give a little spoiler here as to my own views on this case, which is that it almost doesn't matter because I think assuming that this complaint is a fair and accurate description of what happened, I think there's a pretty fair argument to make that Ms. Owen's conduct rises to the level of actual malice. But I'll see what you think. I'm going to read some more of this document. Quote, Harpel's attempt to rebut Owen's defamatory statement soon proved fruitless, as the next day Owen stated on her podcast that Harpel should be fired due to his purported failure to ensure adequate perimeter security during Kirk's speech. She additionally claimed that after the shooting, Harpel ran over to Kirk with his small supposed to be medical bag and that he lied about drone availability. With Owens asking, is this how assassinations happen? She repeated her accusations that Harpole and his team misrepresented the availability of drones. She did not produce evidence that Harpole acted negligently in the lead up to the assassination, that he was dishonest in his interview with Shawn Ryan. End quote. So I'm oversimplifying, but basically at this point he is just giving examples. Owen said, I was really bad at my job. She says, I was so bad that it caused a man to die. And Harpal is saying none of, none of this is true.

[Anya Cain]

Well, she's not just. I mean, if she was just saying, I don't think this would be necessarily defamation. If she said, you know, your client is dead, something went wrong, I wouldn't hire you guys. I mean, like, to me, that's. That's fair. He did die. Obviously, the security was not enough. And if she wants to kind of lash out at them and blame them, okay, it's more of that. She's making all of these statements about, you know, implying he wasn't really giving medical attention, making these specific claims about drones that. That's where it's like, okay, if that's not based in reality, we're getting into some tricky territory.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Yeah, we can see how that would be pretty upsetting and how something like that could hurt his business and reputation.

[Anya Cain]

It's the specificity of some of the claims, for me, that is more important than necessarily her having a negative attitude towards him. I mean, am I right? Like, yeah, if she was broader or just kind of like, oh, well, you know, these guys didn't, you know, do a good job. That's her opinion. She's. That's. She's entitled to that.

[Kevin Greenlee]

And just to be clear, are you on page 13 of my. The notes? Because I'm about to ask you to read something.

[Anya Cain]

Is this with a beginning? Starting with beginning?

[Kevin Greenlee]

Yes. So what. What we've heard is bad. It's about to get worse.

[Anya Cain]

Yeah.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Anya is going to read some more highlights from this complaint, beginning with the

[Anya Cain]

December 9, 2025 episode of her podcast. Owens began accusing Harpel of direct involvement in the assassination. On Owens's December 9, 2025 podcast episode, Charlie Kirk's Last Trip to Asia, Owens opened by teasing that she had uncovered new evidence regarding Kirk's assassination. Well, what I'm about to tell you guys today is going to positively blow your mind. I just cannot see how this would lead to anything other than a full confession from the government about the military's involvement in Charlie Kirk's assassination. But I'm just going to deliver the facts and see where they land. In this episode, Owens claimed that on December 8, 2025, she received a credible tip from a former military member, first referred to by Owens as Harry Myers, but later identified as defendant Mitch Snow, claiming that he inadvertently entered a classified meeting at Fort Huachuca on September 9, 2025, the day before Curly Charlie Kirk's assassination observed senior government officers in attendance, and that following the assassination, identified Harpole as one of the individuals present for the meeting. It is unclear how someone can inadvertently enter a classified meeting at A US army base where the government was secretly plotting to kill a prominent political activist. But Snow claims to have pulled it off upon information and belief. It was during this December 8, 2025 conversations that Owens and Snow agreed to enter into a conspiracy to defame Harpool by using Owens network, including her podcast, social media accounts and websites, to spread this maliciously false theory. Although Owens asserted that she had fact checked Snow's account and that there were facts and that the facts were 100 honest, she provided no explanation of how this was done or what indicia of credibility supported her conclusion. The purpose of these statements was to assert by implication that there was a government conspiracy to assassinate Kirk and that Harpole was part of this conspiracy. According to Snow, as relayed and published by Owens, There were about 12 lieutenant colonels participating in a pretty important meeting at Fort Huchuca on September 9, 2025. The meeting was described as the type that is typically held ahead of an operation. Owens reported that Snow told her, when an operation is being confirmed, you have these final meetings and they involve all the higher ups and you are trying to do this in a very isolated location where you know people are not going to accidentally happen upon you. Owens then reported that Snow told her that he is confident he saw Harpole walking out of the meeting with the military officials, reiterating that she believed Snow and his story were very credible. Again, she did not explain why she believed the story to be credible. Importantly, the description of the episode reads, after today, I do not know how this leads to anything other than a full confession from the government about their involvement in Charlie Kirk's assassination. The description, read within the context and con of the content of this episode, clearly sends the message that Snow witnessed Harpole leaving a meeting where he was conspiring with the military and or federal government to have Charlie Kirk assassinated.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Let's stop there.

[Anya Cain]

I just also want to say I apologize for initially pronouncing the fort wrong. Kevin did not put the pronunciation in until third mention.

[Kevin Greenlee]

There's a lot to unpack there for one thing. First of all, Anya, if you got a tip from someone saying, oh, I stumbled into a secret meeting which I'm pretty sure involved a lot of high level military leaders and members of a security team plotting the assassination of a prominent man, do you say, okay, let's go on the podcast tomorrow, or do you take steps to verify? What do you do?

[Anya Cain]

I take steps to verify and frankly I'm extremely skeptical. We've heard tips from people that we were skeptical about and we were able to dig. And we were able to confirm that what they were telling was the absolute truth. And that's always a gratifying experience. But you have to dig. Starting with skepticism makes sense. You don't want to be mean to a source or drive someone away or make it clear you don't believe them. But I think there's ways to just say, tell me what you know and then is there any you know, and then work to do your due diligence to confirm it or, or disprove it? We've heard from a lot of people who, what I would, I would classify as acting in bad faith or possibly suffering from some form of mental illness who have told us things that if they were true, would be huge and would be like the story of the century. And you look into them and they're just not. And so it's very, very important for anyone with a platform. I mean, certainly for journalists, this is part of journalism, you have to do due diligence. But if, if you're not a journalist but you have a public platform, I would argue that you still owe it to people to be very methodical and careful about what you put out there.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Let me ask you this. Are you surprised or shocked that someone would air these very, very serious allegations on this little bit of evidence to an audience of millions of people knowing

[Anya Cain]

what I know about the conspiratorial type of programming and the lack of ethics and the lack of frankly morality. I mean, I mean these, I mean, I, I view people in, in this space who are making a lot of money off of putting out conspiracies as degenerates. So in that sense it doesn't surprise me in the sense of like being this stupid as to run something and that could jeopardize your business to this extent. Just in terms of craven capitalistic kind of self interest. Yeah, I guess that does surprise me a bit.

[Kevin Greenlee]

I, I, I think we're kind of getting, we're not even there yet, but we're kind of getting to what I, I was saying about how I wonder if this would rise to the level of actual malice even in the unlikely event that he's found to be limited purpose public.

[Anya Cain]

Certainly seems like it because she should

[Kevin Greenlee]

have been skeptical of this story and she should have taken it steps to. You don't check it.

[Anya Cain]

You don't, I mean, one source, one source saying this, I mean, if the guy comes in with a treasure trove of documents or whatever footage or, I don't know, something to corroborate, maybe that's a start. Although I would be concerned that they were fabricated. Extraordinary claims, extraordinary conspiracies requirements, extraordinary evidence, or the very least evidence.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Carl Sagan. So one thing that that's interesting, Anya, is that when someone makes, like, a big claim about something, maybe the big claim itself is hard to verify. There's usually, if you look at it, there's, like, littler claims inside it.

[Anya Cain]

Yes.

[Kevin Greenlee]

That are verifiable.

[Anya Cain]

Yes.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Let's say that to use the classic example that you had a meeting with conspirators to plot the idea of stealing cereal, and you had that meeting at

[Anya Cain]

an Arby's who told you about the heist squad.

[Kevin Greenlee]

I may not be able to prove that you actually had that conversation at Arby's, but maybe I can prove whether or not you went to Arby's that day. So there's usually things within it that you can verify. And with that, I'm going to read paragraph 42. I actually want you to read paragraph 42.

[Anya Cain]

The claim that Harpole was present at Fort Huchuca on September 9, 2025 for an alleged meeting is verifiably false, as Harpole's travel records plainly place him in Dallas, Texas. There would also be records showing Harpole's access to the base. Owens had access to these records, but dismissed them without any investigation, claiming that they did not provide an alibi for when the media concluded. To avoid any uncertainty, Brian Harpole has never been to Fort Huchuca, not ever. Additionally, there's no evidence that such a meeting even took place with or without Harpole.

[Kevin Greenlee]

So he's making very clear and categorical denials there. I wasn't there when this supposed meeting took place. No evidence the meeting even took place at all. And by the way, I've never even been to that fortune. No waffling, no weasel words. He's pretty clearly saying this is all flatly untrue. And he's also indicating, I have travel records that show me being in another state. She's seen these records, but she's just saying, yeah, it doesn't matter because she

[Anya Cain]

doesn't want it to matter.

[Kevin Greenlee]

This is when I think, you know, actual malice.

[Anya Cain]

This is actual malice.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Rear its head.

[Anya Cain]

If, if she's being provided with documentations that refute her theory, it's her obligation to look at those carefully, investigate them.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Probably step back from your theory.

[Anya Cain]

Probably step back. But, like, even beyond that, it doesn't even seem like she gave them a shot. You know, you could say, well, I don't believe these, or these are Fabricated. But like, but why do you believe that? And, and what are you doing? I mean, this is, this is going off the rails.

[Kevin Greenlee]

So, so one comeback you often see people in Owen's position make in a situation like this is. Well, yeah, I said all these things, ladies and gentlemen. I certainly said these things, but no one took me seriously. Everybody knew it was just satire. We were just, we were just having fun.

[Progressive Insurance Announcer]

Truckers aren't just moving goods. They're making sure bakers get their chocolate chips and hotels get their tiny soaps. But truckers can't do this if they're not on the road. That's why Progressive has over 360 heavy truck employees to help truckers stay on time and on track. Quote, Truck insurance today in as little as 8 [e-mail] progressive casualty insurance company and affiliates.

[Kevin Greenlee]

I was talking in an over the top way. Harpal's team includes tweets and social media comments from people who very clearly did take it seriously. I want to read one from a woman whose Twitter handle. I say Twitter handle. I guess it's X handle now. In any case, she uses the name online, Louise Trump. And she wrote on December 9, 2025, why was Brian Harpel leaving a military operation meeting days before Charlie assassination? This is absolutely wild and it needs answers, end quote. So it was people believing it and this man's reputation is damaged because they do believe it.

[Anya Cain]

I mean, this, this is, I mean, this is just so. I don't know. And it's like, I don't know. It's shocking. It is shocking how underhanded this is.

[Kevin Greenlee]

The complaint also goes on to make the point that this wasn't a case where Ms. Owens defamed him. Just once. She seemed to go on a bit of a campaign against him. Can you repair it?

[Anya Cain]

Almost kind of say like he, he kind of disputed her criticizing his business. It almost sounds like then she became obsessed with him.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Yeah.

[Anya Cain]

Like afterwards. Because he dared push back against her narrative. And then she. He became a target.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Read paragraphs 45, 46.

[Anya Cain]

It just seems incredibly petty.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Quote.

[Anya Cain]

On December 12, 2025, Owens posted to X that Brian Harpole has already been caught lying about what transpired on that day. Did he also lie about having placed a 911 call? Did no one from their team call 911 after Charlie was shot? In reality, Harpal did not lie about the events of the day, placing a 911 call or anything else. Despite accusing Harpal of lying, Owens failed to specify any statements by Harpole that were Allegedly false and presented no evidence to support her conclusion that Harpo lied about the events of September 10, 2024.

[Kevin Greenlee]

She also kept talking about this meeting that she said took place, this military installation. Why don't you read about that, Anya?

[Anya Cain]

I mean, can I just say first, like, please do. A 911 call is, you know, that's. That often can come out in a case. Sometimes. Not always. Sometimes they can be sealed, sometimes they can take a while to come out. But there's no rush. If you're trying to do prudent journalism and not defame people, you can wait, you can keep digging. And you know what? Even if you have suspicions about something, that's okay, but you don't pull the trigger and publicize them until you have some proof or some things that are backing up the narrative you're putting out there. It's just that simple.

[Kevin Greenlee]

At the end of the day, in my view, people don't tend to remember who was first. They remember who was best, who gave the most accurate information.

[Anya Cain]

I don't think that's true. I think first. I mean, I think in our crummy media environment, slop constantly people do think about first and most salacious and most dramatic and most over the top and most like, you know, like. I think that's why people like this are successful. But I think it's, it certainly doesn't help you in a defamation case. Right, right. I think that, yeah, I mean, it's, it's, it's a broken situation that bad things are rewarded, but you can go too far and then just cross over into straight up defamation, hurt people, and then in doing so, hurt yourself if there are significant financial penalties to your conduct. So you want me to do 49?

[Kevin Greenlee]

Start with 49 and read a few.

[Anya Cain]

This is about the military installation get together soiree. On December 18, 2025, Owens, using X to advertise her upcoming podcast episode, wrote, we bring you an explosive interview with what may be the lone eyewitness to the mysterious top brass meeting which occurred on Fort Huchuca the day before Charlie's assassination. The lone eyewitness Owens was referring to as Mitch Snow, whom she had referred to as Harry Myers in the December 9, 2025 episode of the podcast. The interviewed air on the December 18, 2025 episode of the Defendants podcast exclusive interview. What he saw at Fort Huchuca the day before Charlie died. Much of the interview reiterated and republished the same story that Owens previously told on the December 9, 2025 episode of her podcast. Notably, during this December 18, 2025 interview, Snow stated that he saw a congressman walking out of Fort Huchuca with several people, including multiple high ranking military officials. Later, Snow stated the head of security there, Brian Harpel, he was one of the people walking out with the congressman. According to Snow, he claimed he knew it was Harpole because he had a gift for recognizing people. Snow said he saw someone with the same mannerisms, the same crick in his neck, face, waxy look on his face, hand gestures, shoulder shrug, gait, approximate height and haircut as Brian Harpel definitely walked past me. Owens then asked Snow how certain he was the saw harpole at the Fort Echuca meeting. Snow responded that he was 95 to 99, certain that he saw Harpo leaving the high ranking military meeting on the morning of September 9, 2025. Owens expressly adopted and endorsed Snow's statements, affirming their purported truth and representing that she would assist him by fundraising and supporting his efforts to pursue and publicize these fallacious claims. That's a good idea. Owens explicitly agreed with Snow, stating his instincts were right that he walked in on the end of an important meeting. During the episode, Owens claimed to have evidence confirming that Snow witnessed the end of this meeting, but has since failed to produce that evidence because it does not exist. These statements are verifiably false. Harpole was in Dallas, Texas the morning of September 9, 2025, and there could four could not have possibly attended a meeting in Arizona. Owens had access to Harpole's flight records and knew it was impossible for Harpal to have been at Fort Huchuca on September 9, 2025.

[Kevin Greenlee]

And it's always a good sign when just reading the lawsuit makes you laugh.

[Anya Cain]

It's, it's, it's so embarrassing. And you know what, it's so embarrassing that people take her seriously. Like, what are people thinking? I know some of those listens are hate listens. I just don't get it. It's, it's like what someone's, I mean, you know what it is? I think she taps into this kind of sense of victimization in her audience and you know, this whole idea, I mean, just. Can I just point something out to everybody? Charlie Kirk was a notable ally of President Donald Trump. Donald Trump is the United States President. Okay? He's a conservative Republican. Charlie Kirk was a conservative Republican. Charlie Kirk, my understanding, has had a personal friendship with U.S. vice President J.D. vance, okay? His people were in power so they just up and decided to kill him. Look what I mean, like, I'm, like it would be Stupid if it was a Democrat in the White House. But it's even stupider now and then over the deep state on you. You know, miss me with that. Miss me with the baby brain takes. I'm just so sick of this.

[Kevin Greenlee]

We're through the looking glass now.

[Anya Cain]

Freaking. Just the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

[Progressive Insurance Announcer]

Yeah.

[Anya Cain]

You know, it's like, this is just for dumb people who think they're smart and like, think that by not being able to filter out any information that somehow makes them, you know, seeing things no one's seeing. It's like, yeah, because it's not there. That's why no one else is seeing it. This is just stupid. Listen, when anything happens with a high profile guy, I have no issue with people asking questions, with people saying, okay, could his enemies have done this? Could it be bigger? Could it be worse than we thought? Could there be some kind of corruption angle where someone's trying to do this? I have no problem. And that's the refrain of the conspiracy theorists. We're just asking questions. That's not true. They're always. They're never asking freaking questions. They're telling you things that are not true and framing it as facts. That's not questions. That's like putting out stuff that's nonsense. And questions, especially questions that you think to yourself and look into and dig and try to get things to either prove or disprove it. That's fine with me. But this stuff is not that. And it just is. It's just corrosive. It's corrosive for our society. It. It does nothing. This serves nothing. These people, people who do this stuff are parasites as far as I'm concerned. They just leech out, you know, people's energy and anger and time and emotions and it's just all play pretend. It's just not for adults.

[Kevin Greenlee]

And before we move on, I did want to highlight that they're the end of what Anya read that Harpal is again making the point that Ms. Owens had access to his flight records. And these flight records pretty definitively put him in a state other than the state in which this meeting is claimed to have occurred. So what he is saying there is. She knew what she was saying was untrue and she said it anyway.

[Anya Cain]

Oh, well, Kevin, maybe he had access to the Deep State teleportation device. Ever think of that?

[Kevin Greenlee]

He's saying she intentionally misled her audience. I want to read a little bit more here. Quote. On December 17, 2025, apparently fearing a lawsuit, Owens reached out to Harpal asking if he wanted to have an off the record discussion. Harpel did not respond, end quote. So one of the things we are talking about here is how reporting works or how it should work. You are indeed supposed to reach out to people.

[Anya Cain]

Yeah.

[Kevin Greenlee]

I mean, before you make explosive claims accusing them of murder.

[Anya Cain]

Keyboard being before, she should have done

[Kevin Greenlee]

this much, much earlier. And we should also make the obvious point. People are not required to respond to your request for comment, especially if they don't feel you're treating them fairly. It is not a good idea to assume that just because someone doesn't respond to you, they have something to hide.

[Anya Cain]

No, that's a very. I mean, I actually see, I've heard reporters say, like, oh, they won't talk to me. It's weird. And it's like, it's not really, like, honestly, it's really not that weird that people don't want to be dragged at some public nonsense that they want nothing to do with. In many cases, if you're dealing with a responsible and ethical reporter, then talking to them is a good thing because you can clear things up. Okay. That's my view. If you, if you, if you have nothing to hide, I think it's a good idea. But there are some not so great reporters out there, so I can understand people being like, well, listen, I'm going to talk to you and you're going to just twist around everything I say and, you know, edit it to make me look bad. And frankly, at this point, it's December 17th, when she's reaching out. She's already all but accused this guy of murdering the guy who employed him. So, yeah, it's too late. I wouldn't go on that show either. And also, we could talk about this, but, like, there's the don't feed the beast financial element of this too.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Let's, let's stick a pin in that for a minute.

[Anya Cain]

Okay?

[Kevin Greenlee]

Anya, can you read paragraphs 55 and 56?

[Anya Cain]

Owens then used Harpo's silence to further defame him on the December 19, 2025 episode on her podcast, what does Ben Shapiro know about Erica Kurt and Fort Huchuca? Owens implied Harpel's failure to respond to her text message as suspicious in the same podcast. It's not. I just, just. Can I cut in? It's not suspicious, okay? Half of the people we reach out to never respond to us.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Okay?

[Anya Cain]

It's normal. And we. And we haven't defamed them. Owens implied Harpo's failure to respond to her. Oh, yeah. In the same Podcast, Owens again placed Harpole at Fort Huchuca, characterizing the alleged meeting as a form of planning or coordination related to the assassination of Kirk. She stated that she found Snow's narrative to be compelling because she had been given travel logs for Brian Harpel. And it is entirely possible that Brian Harpel could have made it for that meeting. I can tell you that definitively. Brian Harpel could have made it to that base for that early morning meeting. This is blatantly false. To this day, Owens has still not produced the alleged travel logs she referred to in this episode to give false credibility to the defamatory assertion she was promoting that Harpel had been paid a part of an assassination conspiracy at Fort Huchuca. She has never produced them because she knows that they demonstrate that Harpel was in Dallas, Texas, at the time of the Fort Huchuca meeting.

[Kevin Greenlee]

So I want to break in. This is a situation where he seems to be calling her bluff. She's saying she has these travel records that potentially put him in Arizona. He's saying, produce them. If she does indeed have these records, she should produce them, because if they are accurate and honest, then that would blast a hole through Harpel's allegations and add to her own credibility, which it

[Anya Cain]

seems like she really, really wants to do.

[Kevin Greenlee]

If she does not produce these records, people might start to wonder if she ever had them at all or if they even existed. Any elementary. Paragraph 59, which I think speaks to a point you were talking about a minute ago.

[Anya Cain]

Owen soon texted Harpole a third time, asking him again if he would like to speak about the events that transpired on the morning of September 9, 2025. Owens concluded her text message by stating that she found it odd she could not get Harpole to confirm or deny his location on the morning of September 9th. Owens already knew why Harpold did not respond. Her repeated text to Harpole to get him to respond to the defamatory conspiracy theories that she'd been promoting present a cynical attempt to profit from a situation she had manufactured. By spreading defamatory lies about Harpole and then cajoling him to give her the exclusive content of a response, she stood to profit from increased attention and viewership to her platform at Harpal's expense.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Wasn't that what you were talking about?

[Anya Cain]

Ding, ding, ding, Right.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Why don't you elaborate?

[Anya Cain]

You know, it's basically like, you know, I mean, I don't know how this, like a tiger has been trying to eat you and then you fling yourself in its mouth. You know, I mean, you're just feeding the beast. She. She has no interest in. Actually, she's outed herself already by this point. She has no interest in both sides. She has no interest on. In. In. Oh, okay, Harpal, you're right. Thanks. She is out to get him. And not only that, but she's created this situation where she alone is responsible for people thinking he did it. And then she's in a position where then she's basically trying to force him to give her a response so that then she can further monetize it and be like, Brian Harpel responds, but I don't believe him. And it just worsens his situation and makes her money. There's been many times where we've had instances where YouTubers in particular will say stuff that's not true about us. They'll lie about us. They'll say we're part of an odinous conspiracy, and then they'll do the kind of perfunctory like, well, you should come on and defend yourselves. And it's like, first of all, you've got two followers. But second of all, why on earth would we give you money? Because people would actually tune in to see us respond to this. And then you will be able to monetize that and give you money and, like, you know, go get a real job, you know, if you want money. Like, this is not like you are. When you. When you perform for these people on their shows, you are giving them money. So I think he had the right instincts there.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Yeah. There's a couple more things I want to mention very, very quickly here. At one point, Owens produced what she says is a. Is a screenshot of a true and authenticated incident report which proves that this meeting happened. And it's like a picture of a screen with text on it with a flashing cursor at the end, which indicates whatever it is, it was being typed at the time the picture was taken.

[Anya Cain]

That's how good her sources are.

[Kevin Greenlee]

That's not what an incident report looks like. I just. I just want to mention that. And then she also started having this. This bizarre theory. Mr. Harpel said he started planning the security for Mr. Kirk's appearance. I believe about two weeks before the appearance was made. He had. Mr. Kirk had an appearance the next day that Mr. Harpel hadn't planned any security for. And she said, well, obviously he didn't plan security the next day because he had advanced knowledge that Mr. Kirk would already be dead.

[Anya Cain]

I don't need to do security. Yeah.

[Kevin Greenlee]

I mean, so why bother? And this is just an innocent slip he made, which, which gives the whole game away. And he says, well, I didn't coordinate security for that other appearance because I wasn't told by Mr. Kirk that he would be going there. And it wasn't unusual for him to go to some of these places with someone else other than me. So it wasn't even his job to do that.

[Anya Cain]

And, and this is kind of the classic conspiracy move, right? You know, most people are not necessarily working in security firms and most people are not working at Turning Point usa, and they don't necessarily know what the normal is internally. So a conspiracy theorist can cherry pick one fact and, whoa, why wouldn't he plan O? And it's like, you know, the thing is, if you have, if you work, if you are in a workplace, you know that there might be certain quirks or certain things that would be routine, and maybe you could imagine that if someone cherry picked them because something happened at your workplace, we could all make it sound very sinister. But it's not. It's just normal. And that's why it's very important for reporters to do their due diligence and get what is normal. Kind of get a baseline. And then if, if it's like, if you're being told by employees, no, that's not normal at all. We, we normally would do it this way. Maybe it's significant and you can run with it. But if everyone's like, yeah, that's pretty normal, you know, then it's nothing.

[Kevin Greenlee]

So that, that's basically the gist of these allegations. I mean, before I talk about something related to this case that's not directly related to the allegations, was there anything else you wanted to say about the allegations, or are you ready to move

[Anya Cain]

on the allegations against Harpel?

[Kevin Greenlee]

This whole suit, the body of the

[Anya Cain]

suit, the defamatory comment, seems very devastating against Candace Owens. I mean, I came into this kind of being like, well, if she was just criticizing him or saying he did a bad job, maybe it's an overreaction, you know, or maybe, maybe, maybe it's like close enough to the line that you could understand the suit, but maybe it's not quite, you know, I, we don't want a chill, free speech, but this is just ridiculous. This is nuts. I don't care what anyone's politics are, by the way. Like, you can be. Whatever her politics, whatever that is, it's about the facts of this matter. And it really, unless this Harpo guy's attorneys are just, you know, completely putting out stuff that are lies and lying to the Court and, you know, completely charlatans. It sounds like she's in a lot of trouble.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Yes, that's.

[Anya Cain]

It sounds like she could basically lose a lot here.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Yeah.

[Anya Cain]

Because there's really very few mitigating things in her favor here. This is not like a, this is not like a breaking news or. I, I had a really credible source who tricked me and he didn't. You know, this is like, this is bad. This is bad.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Okay. As I mentioned, I think at the top, this is just the complaint that Mr. Harpel has filed. One would imagine Ms. Owens would make some sort of a response to it. Perhaps her response will be devastating too. I don't know. It seems unlikely. It is possible. I just want to highlight the fact that we're only getting one side of the story.

[Anya Cain]

That's fair. I mean, I get irritated with this side because I, I see this a lot in true crime, unfortunately. I don't think this is just a political thing. I think it's a true crime thing. I think we're going to see it again and again with dishonest creators. As the mainstream media becomes less relevant and less centered at the heart of our media environment, and as independent creators become more, this kind of thing is only going to happen more. And that's why I think it's really important. I'm so glad that you did such a great job explaining defamation to people, because as we see these things, we're gonna have to look at them for ourselves and say, okay, is this somebody trying to exploit the system to silence creators, because that can happen, or is this somebody who is actually being malicious as a creator, harming people and being brought to accountability? So I'm open minded in the sense, like, if her response is devastating, I will certainly be willing to change my mind if the facts support her. But what has been outlined so far sounds very bad for Candace Owens.

[Kevin Greenlee]

So with that said, I want to mention the most recent development in this case. You and I have talked a little bit about this privately. When I, when I, I say this, the obvious question is, what does this mean? What's going on? And it's frustrating. The answer is I don't know. But I, I want to note it because at the very least, it seems unusual. I'm sure this has happened before. I can't recall other cases where it's happened before. This case was filed in the middle district of Tennessee. That is a court where there is a total of seven judges and magistrates. And this is the most recent order in this case, quote, as all district judges and magistrate judges of the middle district of Tennessee have recused in this matter. A district judge from outside the district will be Designated by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. When the designation is made, the case will be reassigned. It is so ordered. End quote. So they're saying that all seven judges and magistrates in this court in this middle district of Tennessee have recused themselves from the case, have said, we can't do this case for some reason or another. Why are they doing that? Why does this conflict or whatever it is, why does it apply to all seven judges and magistrates? What is going on? And if there is some sort of a dramatic conflict, why wasn't that immediately apparent? Why did it not surface to, like, a month or so into this? I don't know. I don't know what's going on.

[Anya Cain]

That is baffling and frankly, troubling. Like. So she's. She's living and working in Tennessee?

[Kevin Greenlee]

Yeah, I believe so.

[Anya Cain]

I. I don't want to speculate because I just truly. That's really bizarre.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Seven judges and magistrates.

[Anya Cain]

That's really weird. If anyone has any sense about why that would or could happen, or if you have any insider information about why that is happening, let us know. Just know that we will vet it before we report on it.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Yeah. What if we get some guys saying, well, I'm pretty good at recognizing people, and I have a hunch I saw a meeting for Huchuca. That explains it.

[Anya Cain]

All the seven judges were seen leaving that same meeting. I mean, I don't even. I don't know. That's really odd.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Yeah.

[Anya Cain]

I've never heard of that before.

[Kevin Greenlee]

It's a baffle.

[Anya Cain]

But again, there's a lot of. Here's the thing. We think it's baffling, but there's a lot of things we haven't heard about. And one thing that it makes you a better, more responsible creator is. Is not acting like everything needs to be something that you are familiar with.

[Kevin Greenlee]

There could be a completely normal, great explanation for this. There was a lot of things in the Delphi case.

[Anya Cain]

Yes.

[Kevin Greenlee]

That seemed very baffling or perhaps even sinister, because we didn't really know everything that was going on. And then once we learned what was going on, we said, oh, that makes perfect sense. Yeah, that was the smart thing to do.

[Anya Cain]

Yeah, that actually makes a lot of sense. You know, people are like, why didn't they say how the girls died? Well, because they got a lot of people calling in tips on their boyfriend and their baby daddy about, oh, this guy was involved. And he said, he shot them. And, yeah, well, they weren't shot. So we can.

[Kevin Greenlee]

So let's ignore that. Let's assume whatever reason there is for seven judges and magistrates suddenly recusing themselves, let us assume it is a good reason. And in the interests of.

[Anya Cain]

I don't think we need to assume that. I think we can just note it, but we can just not assume that it's part of some wider conspiracy. I think that we don't need people to be like, everything's always great, don't worry about it. But we, but we can say there's a middle ground of like, I don't know what's going on, I want to find out. That's a very good place to be because you can be skeptical, you can be curious, you could get more information. And that is where I think a lot of people would behoove themselves to position themselves. Because when you come into it as just la, la, la, everything's fine, maybe you miss something that is bad that is happening. But when you come into things like everything's a conspiracy, oh, everyone's going to the fort and meeting up and doing all this stuff and, you know, this guy really knows faces. So, I mean, he would know, you know, then, then you really kind of. You can go off the rails really quickly. So, I mean, there's a. There's a middle ground here.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Yeah, the Dirk Benedict type. Wasn't he the face man on a team? And on that note, I think we're probably at a wrap, right?

[Anya Cain]

Yeah. Thank you for going into this. This is nuts.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Thanks for listening, everybody, and we'll talk to you soon. Thanks so much for listening to the Murder Sheet. If you have a tip concerning one of the cases we cover, please email [e-mail] if you have actionable information about an unsolved crime, please report it to the appropriate authorities.

[Anya Cain]

If you're interested in joining our Patreon, that's available at www.patreon.com murdersheet. If you want to tip us a bit of money for records requests, you can do so at www. Buymeacoffee.com murdersheet. We very much appreciate any support.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Special thanks to Kevin Tyler Greenlee, who composed the music for the Murder Sheet and who you can find on the [e-mail] if you're looking to talk with

[Anya Cain]

other listeners about a case we've covered, you can join the Murder Sheet discussion group on Facebook. We mostly focus our time on research and reporting, so we're not on social media much. We do try to check our email account, but we ask for patience as we often receive a lot of messages. Thanks again for listening.