Timcast IRL: Candace Owens Implies TPUSA KILLED Charlie Kirk, Claims Failed Bibi Deal Cost MILLIONS w/ Nick Freitas
Date: December 3, 2025
Host: Tim Pool (Timcast Media)
Guests: Nick Freitas, Eliyahu (White House Correspondent), Phil Labonte
Episode Theme:
A raw and contentious breakdown of recent allegations by Candace Owens implicating Turning Point USA in the death of Charlie Kirk—suggesting motives tied to Israel and a failed Netanyahu deal—and exploration of how sensationalism, conspiracy, and media manipulation infect conservative politics .
Main Theme & Purpose
This episode dives into the firestorm following Candace Owens’ viral social media posts alleging that Turning Point USA (TPUSA)—the organization Charlie Kirk founded—betrayed and may have been involved in his murder, possibly motivated by a dropped deal with Benjamin Netanyahu (Bibi) that supposedly cost TPUSA millions. The panel unpacks the rhetoric, implications, and motivations behind Candace’s actions and critiques the broader trend of conspiratorial content in conservative media, also tying in parallel controversies (Mark Kelly/"Seditious Six", White House meme wars, and more).
Key Discussion Points & Insights
1. Candace Owens’ Allegations Against TPUSA
(06:42–24:30, 40:57–48:02)
-
Owens’ Claim: Publicly insists she has received proof that TPUSA’s leadership “betrayed” Charlie Kirk, strongly implying (though stopping just short of direct accusation) that they were complicit in his death — citing multinational involvement and financial motives (failed Netanyahu deal, French Foreign Legion references).
- Candace’s direct words ([09:11]):
“Andrew had told them that when Charlie said no to Bibi, he lost out on millions. ...I have that tip in writing. I’m not lying to you.”
- Candace’s Twitter post read aloud ([07:04]):
“I now can say with full confidence that I believe Charlie Kirk was betrayed by the leadership of Turning Point USA and some of the very people who eulogized him on stage...Yes, I will be naming names...request a refund.”
- Candace’s direct words ([09:11]):
-
Owens’ Insinuation Tactics:
- Frequently couches claims as “that’s how I feel” to maintain plausible deniability.
- Provides “receipts” that are vague (text messages/tips), not concrete evidence.
- Chides donors to "request a refund," advocating, according to Tim, “the destruction of what Charlie built on the basis of insinuations” ([12:00–13:15]).
- Leverages manipulative rhetoric designed to allow “low reading comprehension” followers to fill in the blanks, making her story maximally viral without direct legal risk ([10:24]; [36:10]).
-
Panel Criticism:
- Nick Freitas ([13:38]):
“If somebody came out and started making accusations that both the organization that I built and the woman I dedicated my life to were somehow complicit in my murder, I would hope they had real receipts before they were willing to put my wife or my organization...on the line for that."
- Phil Labonte ([17:32]):
"It’s all implication. And she's covering her tracks by saying, ‘that’s how I feel.’ I hate the whole thing, from top to bottom...all of the people talking about Charlie’s murder, post Charlie’s murder."
- Tim Pool ([13:15], [24:30]):
“The idea that you would try to destroy them and get everybody to pull their donations using the insinuation they murdered Charlie Kirk is evil.”
“When I see the things she’s saying and I know these techniques of manipulation...it’s manipulative language intentionally to trick people…” - Eliyahu ([33:33]):
"She’s really willing to peddle bullshit and rumors and spin up fake narratives to try to get clicks...She knows that she’s spreading stuff that is BS, but she believes it will get her clicks."
- Nick Freitas ([13:38]):
2. Financial and Personal Motives — Media, Money, and Revenge
(20:02–24:30; 47:39–48:33)
- **Panel speculates Owens is motivated not by ignorance but malice—specifically, money, attention, and possible axes to grind due to past falling outs with Daily Wire, Ben Shapiro, and TPUSA ([23:33]; [45:13–45:53]).
- Owens’ business model:
- Fortune estimates $10M/year revenue from controversy-driven media ([27:28]) with the panel estimating more; lawsuit from French First Lady Macron could threaten this.
- Comparison with Nick Fuentes and others who are deplatformed; speculation on why Candace avoids bans ([43:23–44:33], [109:21–112:44]).
- Speculation on jealous motivation:
- Panelists discuss the possibility that Candace’s emotional focus on Charlie stems from jealousy and a “friend-zoned” relationship, suggesting an emotional need for attention and revenge ([116:16–118:32]).
- Tim:
“She talks about how she used to, like, send him texts saying, I feel like an alien. And he’d respond with, I’m a time traveler...It sounds like she is the friend zoned...and she’s very jealous.”
3. Defamation Lawsuit: Macron, TPUSA, and the Legal Boundaries of Conspiracy
(27:28–30:55)
- Fortune details Owens’ $10M+ empire is at risk from a defamation suit—her claims against the Macrons and the business model of viral, unsubstantiated outrage.
- Panel agrees:
- Owens will likely lose the lawsuit—American courts (especially with French diplomatic pressure) are not likely to shield her “controversy as currency” model when clear, personal defamation is involved ([30:55]).
- On TPUSA never suing Candace ([40:57]):
- Tim:
“They’re not going to [sue]. Because the law doesn’t work to protect you in any meaningful way...If Turning Point were to sue...there would be depositions and discovery...she will then use [that] on her show...She’s been able to get more than two months of content out of saying nothing. No evidence.”
- Tim:
4. Broader Media Culture — Manipulation, Conspiracy, and the “Womanosphere”
(24:30–32:00; 36:38–37:10)
- Candace’s approach compared to “female-coded” true crime drama content targeting women—emotional, narrative-driven, social currency intensive.
- Panel's larger point:
- Such content hijacks real politics with “Netflix true crime” distraction, pulling focus from actual, actionable issues toward sensational soap opera ([33:33], [35:27], [114:55]).
- Manipulative rhetoric is a symptom of “post-truth society” ([37:01]).
5. Military, Government, and Civil-Military Division
(65:15–89:41)
- Washington Post accused of lying about Trump’s Secretary of War ordering illegal killings during a drone strike; New York Times debunked this.
- Panel claims mainstream media is “fomenting civil war” by sowing division within the military and painting Trump admin orders as illegal, so Democrats can later claim they are seditious ([65:15–74:50]).
- Mark Kelly’s comments to military personnel:
- Warned service members they could be prosecuted by future Democrat administrations for following “illegal” orders, even with JAG approval.
- Panel sees this as threat, arguing it damages morale and readiness.
- Relevant quote ([76:09], Nick):
“Again, my background was unconventional warfare and counterinsurgency...The thing that, again, there’s two things about this that really piss me off....the whole idea of, am I going to...will there be a future regime...that’s going to come in and now determine three years after the fact...you executed [an order that] was unlawful and now we’re punishing you.”
- Parallel drawn between media/political manipulations here and Candace’s vague insinuation techniques.
6. Memes, White House PR, and Viral Distractions
(51:30–62:20)
- White House claps back at pop singer Sabrina Carpenter after she decried their use of her music—panel finds the “meme war” tactics amusing, evidence of changing communications and media battlegrounds.
- Panel notes meme culture’s influence on elections (Trump 2016, meme-driven narratives), White House/DHS’s high-troll skill—while some see it as “beneath the White House,” others see it as effective galvanization ([59:08]).
7. Conspiracism, Gatekeeping, and Cancel Culture
(43:23–44:33; 112:44–114:55)
- Speculates on why Candace Owens is platformed/algorithmically promoted while others (e.g., Nick Fuentes) are not.
- Contrasts the platforms’ tolerance attributed variously to DEI (diversity equity inclusion) goals, her former Daily Wire ties, her “low IQ” brand of antisemitism being safe for mainstream/discrediting for the truly subversive, etc.
Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments
Candace's Insinuation
- (07:04, Tim Pool)
“She is not just implying that [TPUSA] were involved in the murder of Charlie Kirk, but that everybody should get a refund...She tweets, ‘I received information last night that put the final pieces together’...”
Panel Critique of Rhetoric
- (13:38, Nick Freitas)
“Before [accusing] my wife or my organization, my life’s work...I would hope that they had real receipts before they were willing to put my wife or my organization...on the line for that.”
- (17:32, Phil Labonte)
“It’s all implication. And [Owens is] covering her tracks by saying, ‘That’s how I feel.’ It’s all implication...It’s really gross.”
On Manipulation / Media Literacy
- (36:10, Tim Pool)
“This is basic manipulative rhetoric, social engineering where you say things so that the other person makes an assumption and then you can’t be held liable...”
On Content Style
- (26:14, Tim Pool)
“It’s a true crime drama and it plays really, really well among women.”
On Malice and Intent
- (23:33, Tim Pool)
“Malice in the legal sense. I think that she is fully cognizant of what she’s doing...I think she’s a genius...But when I see these techniques in manipulation...it’s manipulative language intentionally to trick people.”
On Macrons Lawsuit
- (30:55, Tim Pool)
“She will not win this...because when the French government says, ‘we are going to your courts’...If you go up against the French government and the US backs her over a NATO ally – it’s not going to happen.”
On Why TPUSA Won't Sue Owens
- (40:57, Tim Pool)
“They’re not going to [sue]...there would be depositions and discovery...she will then use [that] on her show.”
On Civil-Military Division
- (74:50, Tim Pool)
“This is illegal...Mark Kelly’s actions fall perfectly under [18 USC 2387]...They need to be criminally charged. If they are not, this will keep getting worse...Otherwise it just gets worse.”
On Conservative Movement and Truth
- (36:38, Nick Freitas)
"Do we still believe in standards of truth? Do we still believe in objective standards?"
On Candace’s Jealousy/Friendzone Theory
- (116:16, Tim Pool)
"She talks about how she used to, like, send him texts saying, I feel like an alien. And he’d respond with, I’m a time traveler...It sounds like she is the friend zoned...and she’s very jealous."
Owens’ Supporters’ Reaction, According to Panel
- (44:33, Tim Pool)
“Who really betrayed Charlie Kirk? ...She’s actively trying to destroy Charlie Kirk’s legacy.”
Timestamps for Major Segments
- 06:42 — Introduction of Nick Freitas, panel intros, initial Candace Owens segment
- 07:04–13:15 — Tim reviews Candace’s post and implications about TPUSA
- 13:38–14:41 — Nick Freitas on moral lines when making accusations
- 17:32 — Phil on Candace’s rhetorical cover (“that’s how I feel”)
- 20:02–23:24 — On Candace's business model, media monetization, and incentivizing controversy
- 24:30–26:14 — Analysis of “female-coded true crime” appeal in Candace’s show
- 27:28–30:55 — Fortune report on Owens’ media empire & Macron lawsuit
- 36:10–37:10 — Manipulation, vagueness, and the power of insinuation
- 40:57–42:20 — Why Turning Point won’t sue, and how Candace uses "receipts" for perpetual content
- 51:30–62:20 — “Meme wars” and White House social media antics
- 65:15–89:41 — WaPo vs. NYT, Mark Kelly "seditious six," and civil-military division in politics
- 112:44–114:55 — Panel explores why Candace remains so platformed and algorithmically favored
- 116:16–118:32 — Hypothesis: Candace motivated by love/jealousy for Charlie Kirk
Conclusions & Takeaways
- Media Incentives: Panel strongly argues that Candace Owens’ behaviors—insinuation, sensationalism, and stoking vague, dramatic conspiracies—are calculated for engagement and profit, not truth or responsible politics.
- Truth vs. Clicks: The episode ultimately highlights the dangers of a “post-truth” landscape in media, especially when influential personalities traffic in drama over evidence and use audience manipulation tactics.
- Conspiracism's Costs: This drama isn’t just interpersonal—panel sees real risk to conservative institutions, audience trust, and American political process from proliferation of unverified, viral, and weaponized narratives.
- Civil Division: Parallels are drawn between media manipulation around military/civil discord and Candace’s tactics, in both cases undermining trust in institutions through distortion and insinuation.
- Who Betrayed Whom? The show ends on the argument that—contrary to her stated intentions—Candace Owens is the one threatening to destroy Charlie Kirk’s legacy through her campaign.
Final Notable Quote [48:33, Tim Pool]:
“That is manipulative language used by powerful people. This is what Candace does. So when she comes on her show and says they betrayed Charlie, she’s already said it feels like an inside job. So what else could she be insinuating? And then her diehards with 5th grade reading levels are like, I am going to fill the dots, whatever. I want to be true.”
This summary covers the critical discussion points and memorable moments, provides speaker attribution and timestamps for verification, and maintains the original tone and intentional informality of the Timcast IRL crew while clearly signposting the episode’s key themes for anyone who didn’t listen in full.