Last November I wrote a post headlined "Tyler Robinson Killed Charlie Kirk" in response to people like Candace Owens who were entertaining people by spinning out alternate theories involving unknown actors who may (or may not) have been involved in the case. I was talking about stuff like this:
BREAKING: Candace Owens is now claiming that Charlie Kirk’s murder was “approved by Charlie’s friends” in advance — and is even accusing Kash Patel of being involved.
— Eyal Yakoby (@EYakoby) November 20, 2025
This is unhinged, reckless, and completely evidence-free.
pic.twitter.com/UU11DgWiCs
The idea that these vague accusations (and they are always vague) should convince anyone of anything is pretty absurd. And yet, here we are four months later and this same nonsense is still floating around. Owens is still spouting constantly changing theories about who really killed Charlie Kirk and ignoring the actual evidence gathered by the state which she refers to as "fed slop."
This works on some people precisely because Owens and others keep things vague and never get held to account because they never agree to debate anyone who might offer some contradictory facts or ask a follow up question.
This week, someone who at least partially agrees with the Owens conspiracy theorists agreed to debate someone else who demanded facts and clear statements and the result was pretty interesting. Wokal Distance on X highlighted this debate yesterday.
This is a textbook example of how to debate someone and hold them accountable for providing evidence for their claims.
— Wokal Distance (@wokal_distance) March 28, 2026
This is the best example I have ever seen of calling the bluff of someone with no evidence. Absolute textbook execution here by @paleochristcon…
and it works because Andrew asking a single question and then waiting patiently while the other guy flails about trying to think up a single piece of evidence, has the effect of demonstrating the degree to which the other guy came to his conclusions without any evidence at all.
— Wokal Distance (@wokal_distance) March 28, 2026
He's linking to this tweet which includes a snippet of video from the debate. I'm going to post the full debate below but I wanted to quote what the tweet said about it first. This also introduces the two people in this debate, Zach Costello and Andrew Wilson.
In this debate Andrew Wilson completely dismantles Zach Costello (and by extension every argument Candace Owens has been pushing) about the Charlie Kirk assassination.
Andrew doesn’t use emotions.
He doesn’t use “weird” labels or conspiracy vibes.
He uses **evidence**, logic, facts, ballistics, confessions, DNA, timelines, and forensic details.
Piece by piece he tears apart the idea that Tyler Robinson wasn’t the shooter.
Candace has had **7 months** and still has nothing that holds up in court or under real scrutiny.
No receipts.
No proof.
Just “fed slop,” “weird,” and recycled emotional claims.
She said she would debate **anyone**.
But she won’t touch Andrew Wilson.
Why? Because she knows he would expose her in real time with actual evidence.
This is what happens when you bring facts to a feelings fight.
I've watched the first hour plus of this and it really is very one sided. It's not just that Wilson is a better debater, it's ultimately that Costello can't produce anything of real substance to back up his claims. Costello starts out by offering the same sort of vague positions that all of these people (Candace Owens, Ian Carroll, etc.) offer. They try to avoid being pinned down to a specific claim. When Wilson forces to Costello to actually take a position, suddenly he seems to realize he has nothing to back up those specific views.
For instance, was the man who initially claimed he was the shooter a "decoy" or was he just a left-wing nut case. Is there evidence that some outside group or adversary was behind the assassination? And so on. In every case, once Costello is forced to defend his own position, he can't really do it. All he has is an intuition that the actual investigation can't be trusted. And yes, there's a long section of this going through the claims made by Joe Kent and whether those constitute evidence of anything.
Anyway, the point of all this is that all of the evidence shows convincingly that Tyler Robinson killed Charlie Kirk for his own personal reasons. There is zero evidence that anyone else was pulling his strings (though the FBI is still looking into the possibility that Robinson was radicalized online/that people knew about what he planned to do in advance).
I don't want to beat up on Costello too much. I think he was clearly overmatched here, but he does open this by saying something like the truth is the truth. That's the proper spirit for a real debate. I just think he didn't realize how far his own position had drifted away from the facts. Still, he's at least willing to expose himself to the facts, which is more than you can say for Candace Owens and her fellow influencers. Owens just keeps spinning out new lies and never admits any of her previous claims were nonsense. (As an example, read this post which pretty convincingly shows she got scammed by someone who presented her own attorney's address as a key locus in the secret government plot against Kirk. She never admitted she was wrong, she just moved on.)
I think the reason the conspiracy theorists have been able to thrive as much as they have is partly because Robinson's attorneys have done everything they can to delay his trial and hide the evidence from the public. Hopefully that will be played out soon and we'll get to the trial where everyone can see the actual evidence presented and challenged. In other words, I hope part 3 of this post is wading into an actual trial instead of talking about Candace Owens's vague feelings of unease and latest theories. Here's the full debate.
Editor’s Note: Do you enjoy Hot Air’s conservative reporting that takes on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.
Join Hot Air VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member