Candace Owens Can’t Present Serious Evidence for Her Charlie Kirk Assassination Theories

For critics of the mainstream media—myself very much included—it is tempting to always feel some kinship toward independent media commentators, reporters, and influencers. After all, we have lived through an era in which the skeptics of establishment media institutions were proven right again and again: from the hysterically off-base mainstream contentions regarding Russiagate and Hunter Biden’s laptop to insufficient scrutiny of official claims about the COVID-19 pandemic. Score one (or more) for the outsiders.

The complication, however, is quite obvious: Just because expert, mainstream, legacy media institutions made serious errors, it does not follow that every contrarian, fringe, or conspiratorial idea is automatically correct. It’s a mistake to dismiss the cranks entirely; it’s also a mistake to uncritically accept everything they say.

Enter Candace Owens. The independent podcasting giant certainly has a lot of outlandish opinions—and she utterly fails to back them up. This includes everything from her fervent, incorrect belief that Brigitte Macron is a man to her assertion that her friend, the conservative media giant Charlie Kirk, was assassinated by someone other than Tyler Robinson, the alleged killer.

To discuss this theory, Owens recently appeared on CNN and was eviscerated by correspondent Elle Reeve, who pointed out that Owens had no evidence for her claims that the messages sent by Robinson—in which he appeared to confess to the murder—were fake. In fact, Reeve corrected Owens on a relevant factual point about whether the underlying messages were texts or Discord chats.

I interviewed Candace Owens about Charlie Kirk, Epstein, and Israel. Full 25-min story is at https://t.co/IlKWdp8qv5 pic.twitter.com/7YduapsYjx

— Elle Reeve (@elspethreeve) November 7, 2025

Owens then asserted that the mainstream media are uninterested in pursuing the true story of the Kirk assassination; Reeve countered that of course a reporter would want to blow the lid off such a cover-up if any evidence could be marshaled in support of it.

Declining to take the word of law enforcement at face value is a useful tendency, and even a libertarian one. At the same time, there is no reason whatsoever to disbelieve the information provided by the FBI establishing Robinson’s complicity in the murder. Owens offers nothing but her gut feeling that Robinson’s confession was faked by the FBI.

CNN handled the interview correctly. At no point did Reeve interrupt Owens and accuse her of spreading misinformation, or call for her to be censored, or urge social media to deplatform her. She merely challenged Owens to demonstrate a shred of evidence backing up her claims. That’s the right way to handle such grifters.