The Candace Owens Charlie Kirk Leaks Spark MAGA Meltdown & TPUSA Accusations
PDS Published 10/07/2025
-
CandaceOwens is dropping screenshots that she claims prove Charlie Kirk was changing his stance on Israel,
And then sort of implying that maybe this had to do with his death.
Right, ever since Charlie was assassinated, she has been questioning the federal investigation, discussing it frequently on her podcast, and positing some of her own theories as to why he was killed.
With her often claiming Charlie, who had long been pro-Israel, was starting to change his mind and become more critical.
She got a ton of attention when she claimed that MAGA and pro-Israel billionaire Bill Ackman had privately cornered Charlie at an event in the Hamptons not long before his death and made “threats” after Charlie questioned the way Israel was handling the war. []
Ackman denied this, and Charlie’s producer and spokesperson claimed Charlie had a “cordial” relationship with Bill,
But at this Hamptons meeting, people were questioning whether or not Charlie should host Tucker Carlson, who has been very critical of Israel, at an upcoming event, and Kirk allegedly claimed that:
"Honestly, people telling me not to have Tucker makes me want to have Tucker."
And all this ties to the latest claims Candace has made, saying yesterday on her show that Charlie was “done with Israel bullying him.”
And then shared screenshots of messages she claims come from a group chat Charlie was in with his pastor and seven other people where he said:
“So, Charlie writes in this group chat, ‘Just lost another huge Jewish donor. $2 million a year because we won’t cancel Tucker. I’m thinking of inviting Candace.’ Somebody writes, ‘ughhhh.’ Charlie writes, ‘Jewish donors play into all of the stereotypes. I cannot and will not be bullied like this. Leaving me no choice but to leave the pro-Israel cause.’ Somebody writes, ‘please do not invite Candace, that might feel good short term, but it’s not good long term.’” (16:50-17:23)
“This is 48 hours before Charlie Kirk was assassinated. He was very clear. He was very explicit. And he did not back down, not in the Hamptons that they are lying about, nor in this text thread.” (17:36-17:45)
It seems Candace was not part of this alleged group chat, and she does not make it 100% clear how she got the apparent messages, which have not been independently verified by any major news outlets.
But it comes as she was also alleging that higher ups at Turning Point USA are trying to stop her and others from investigating Charlie’s death and promoting their own conspiracies about what happened:
“What we do know definitively is that the feds are lying to us. That is obvious. That is abundant. If you are able to think thoughts, you can recognize that there is something very wrong with the story that has been presented to the public. And I think that what the public doesn’t understand, and I count myself among the public, is why it seems as though TPUSA executives, and I’ll say, ‘seems,’ are not even remotely in challenging that official narrative. (3:27-4:00)
“Who are they protecting exactly? You will see other times that they and other influencers invoke Erika as the reason that it is not appropriate to ask questions. It’s just not appropriate, while Erika is still grieving, for you guys to ask questions. And I’m just going to come back at you with some common sense. What sort of widow wouldn’t want people to investigate the assassination of their husband?” (4:43-5:06)
She also claimed that Charlie had been discussing his increased interest in Catholicism with her, even sharing a screenshot where he said it was “looking better and better.”
And while she said he was not in the process of converting, she suggested he was toying with the idea.
But apparently, people at TPUSA were denying that he had a major interest in converting to Catholicism, and this upset Candace Owens, as she felt that was not fully honest.
And she was overall just upset that she believes Turning Point execs were telling small lies here and there about Charlie, and questioning why they would be doing this.
Then tying it back to the comments Charlie allegedly made about the donors withholding money and adding:
“You got people that are hosting his show, have they in one honorable thing come out and said, you know what, F a couple of these donors who made his life a living hell in the last couple of weeks.” (18:28-18:40)
“That registers to me as very suspicious. I’m going to frankly say that, it’s suspicious to me. It makes me think that in the same way Charlie was being pressured by money, you might now be run by that same money.” (18:53-19:09)
With her also claiming that Turning Point has made tens of millions since Charlie died, and saying that from the organization's perspective:
“So how are we supposed to honor Charlie? You honor Charlie, of course, by donating to TPUSA. And shutting up, and trusting the feds. Don’t question anything.” (33:37-33:47)
And you have tons of people seeing Candace share this, especially the screenshots discussing donors, and thinking she is dropping a major bombshell here.
Then, you had Andrew Kolvet, a spokesperson for TPUSA and producer of the Charlie Kirk Show, saying today that yes, the texts are real, that he was in the group chat and he was the one who took the screenshots.
But adding he never shared them with the public because they were private, and he had only given them to the government amid the initial investigation to Charlie’s death, but they somehow made their way out to the world, then adding:
“In those first moments, we wanted to leave no stone unturned. We wanted to leave nothing unturned. So I shared it with a few people.” (10:23-10:29)
“One of the reasons that I am glad to have this now public, it was not mine to share publicly, but one of the criticisms we have received is that we don’t care, we are not investigating every lead, we’re not looking under every stone.” (10:35-10:49)
“When I say that we want justice for Charlie more than anyone else, I really mean it, and no stone unturned.” (10:55-11:01)
His guest saying the reason some in the organization are not talking about it is because they do not want to interfere with the ongoing investigation.
Andrew adding he does not begrudge anyone publicly asking questions, but also adding he believes Charlie’s views towards Israel were totally transparent.
“What is the truth about how Charlie felt about Israel? Well, it’s complicated. And it’s nuanced. And it was a wrestle that was going on for months.” (12:40-12:48)
“I looked at that moment like, he is just blowing off some steam. He’s frustrated. He’s venting. And he made it very clear that under any circumstances, that he was not going to be cowed or bullied into deplatforming Tucker, for example.” (18:26-18:41)
With them suggesting that Charlie was ultimately pro-Israel even if he did have some criticisms and questions.
But then you also have some noting that Candace’s comments about Charlie point to a larger discussion about how different factions of the right are trying to jump on Charlie’s death for different reasons.
Because while she is trying to suggest that TPUSA is trying to use Charlie’s death in a way that best serves the organization, you also have some turning the tables and saying the same could be said for Candace, too.
The Guardian published a piece a few weeks ago saying:
“What is notable about the way the right is responding to Kirk’s death is the opportunism.”
“In a moment when Israel’s genocide in Gaza is leading to more open public criticism of Zionism – Owens is capitalising. She continually refers to ‘Zionists’ controlling the media and Kirk’s speech while he was alive.”
With the outlet even speaking to Derek Beres, the co-host of the Conspirituality podcast who is an expert in conspiracies and media literacy,
And he noted it is totally fair for the public to not have faith in Trump and Kash Patel’s FBI, to question what they are putting out there.[]
But he also added:
“One thing about Candace is that she’s an opportunist – at every stage…There’s no consistency, it’s about whatever is going to get eyeballs on ‘me.’”
And with him adding that this is true for tons of different people, that many are vultures trying to use his death to serve themselves.
-
One week into the US government shutdown and things are quickly going to shit.
From chaos to airports across the US to reports that the Trump Administration is trying to screw furloughed workers out of backpay, things are getting messy.
So let’s start with the workers.
As soon as the government shut down on October 1st, pretty much all non-essential staff -- about 750,000 people -- were furloughed and not being paid… kinda.
It’s “kinda” because normally they’re entitled to backpay for the time off.
But even with that, it was rare for a government shutdown to extend past a payday because even missing one paycheck in the short-term could be catastrophic for most Americans.
Which is why it was pretty shocking to learn that the Trump administration is considering not even giving back pay to furloughed workers.
This comes from a memo seen by Axios, and it’s believed that by putting the possibility of no backpay on the table that the Trump administration is hoping to force Senate Democrats into a deal.
But there’s an even bigger wrinkle to all of this: this plan flies in the face of how US law is currently understood.
Right, in 2019, Trump signed a law that was generally understood to guarantee backpay.
But now officials at the Office of Management and Budget are shifting their stance, with one White House senior official who spoke to Axios saying:
"Does this law cover all these furloughed employees automatically? The conventional wisdom is: Yes, it does. Our view is: No, it doesn't.”
This new interpretation of the law by the Office of Management and Budget not only contradicts nearly six years of precedent and understanding, but also recent memos from other Trump agencies.
Right, just this month, the Council of Economic Advisors released a guide about the shutdown and explicitly touched on this when talking about how this would affect contractors, saying:
“Unlike federal employees, federal contractors are not entitled to backpay after the conclusion of a shutdown.”[]
And that followed a memo by the Office of Personnel Management from last month where it had an FAQ and one of the questions was:
“Will employees who are furloughed get paid?”
And to keep it short, they said “yes.”[]
So how is the Trump administration justifying this shift?
Well, shortly after the law was passed in 2019, it was amended.
In that amendment, the law said that workers would get paid "subject to the enactment of appropriations Acts ending the lapse."
That language makes it sound like an automatic thing.
But the Trump Administration is arguing that no, the 2019 law mentions explicitly that year’s shutdown, so it’s the only one that automatically qualifies.
All future shutdowns -- according to this train of thought -- would need to have the money specifically set aside by Congress.
It’s hard to find someone outside of Trump’s inner circle who supports this interpretation, but either way, it’s likely going to put pressure on Senate Democrats to come to the table.
That’s because October 15th is the next government paycheck, and now there’s a possible legal battle about whether that will ever get paid.
We all know that the administration is going to blame the Dems -- regardless if they’re at fault for the shutdown or not.
And the reality is that such messaging works on a sizable number of people and muddies the water for the upcoming midterm.
If you think this isn’t THAT big of a deal because you’re not a federal employee, how can the shutdown affect you?
Well I got bad news there too.
Is anyone in your family a contractor for the federal government? They’re not entitled to automatic back pay.
And in total the White House itself says that the reduced spending due to Federal employees and contractors not getting paid could mean $30 billion less in the economy.
There are also potentially deadly impacts around transportation and particularly airports as air traffic controllers and other personnel don’t go to work.
That’s not because they’re furloughed -- the opposite actually.
By law air traffic controllers aren’t allowed to leave work to protest or because they’re not being paid.
However a work around many ATC use is to just call out sick, with the feds pointing out that worker absenteeism among ATC’s triples to 10% during government shutdowns.
And we’re seeing that in real time, with airports like Burbank literally having no one manning air traffic control yesterday afternoon and evening.
This meant ATCs in San Diego had to take over and there were major flight delays.
Now, in the grand scheme, Burbank isn’t a major airport… but it is in SoCal and shares airspace with major airports like LAX and San Diego -- not to mention other regionals like John Wayne and Ontario.
Not to mention that it is not a popular landing spot for pilots considering how short the runway is.
But Burbank is hardly alone in dealing with delays, and even airports that still have ATCs are dealing with massive headaches.
Right, Newark, Jacksonville, Chicago, and DC all had less Air traffic controllers than usual, leading to up to multiple-hour delays.
That’s not only cause flights are fucked, but also because staff like TSA call out more often during shutdowns.[]
Not to mention the safety concerns that come with fewer air traffic controllers -- which is an occupation that was already heavily short staffed and facing scrutiny over recent aviation disasters earlier this year in the US.
Administration officials like Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy have recognized that absences have spiked, saying in a conference yesterday:
“So now what they think about as they’re controlling our airspace is, ‘How am I going to pay my mortgage? How do I make my car payment?’” (1:13-1:20, 3:01-3:08)
“Do I think they’re more stressed right now in our towers? Yes. Is our airspace unsafe? No.”
President Trump also talked about the situation, saying:
“They’re all democrat delays. There are delays at the airport. That’s standard. THis is something that everyday we put forth a bill. Just a continuation of a simple thing to sign. And I really think that these are people who have nothing to lose. They have no leader, nobody knows who the leader is.” @0:4-@:30
He went on to say that many Dems have “Very low IQs” and called some out by name, such as Jasmine Crockett.
Which is a bit funny because by any metric she’s a pretty accomplished and smart woman -- he just disagrees with her politically.
But that’s just Trump name calling like he always does, and he’s really downplaying the airport situation by saying delays are normal.
Like sure… but the scale is going to be much bigger if ATC people continue to call out.
Not to mention that as this drags on, we could see other things start breaking down.
So who knows, but what do you think?
Are Republicans and Democrats playing a big game of chicken right now?
And which side do you think is doing a better job at blaming the other and possibly making them break first?
Head to Fum to Start with Zero.
-
If you keep blocking my hostile takeover efforts, I’m going to hostile takeover even harder!
That is essentially what Trump is saying in response to judges and officials holding up his efforts to deploy troops into US cities.
Right, we talked a bit yesterday about the situation in Portland - with small protests in the city being characterized as much worse than reality to justify deploying troops.
With Trump describing Portland as “war ravaged” and saying that ICE facilities were under attack by “Antifa, and other domestic terrorists.” []
And then the federal agents doing everything to make reality match that characterization. (BROLL: 0:28-0:45, 1:19-1:26)
Which is when a judge stepped in - temporarily blocking the administration from sending in the state’s National Guard.
With her pointing to, quote, “substantial evidence that the protests at the Portland ICE facility were not significantly violent or disruptive in the days — or even weeks — leading up to the President’s directive.” []
Then we saw Illinois and Chicago filing similar lawsuits yesterday - gunning for a ruling just like the one in Portland after the announcement that troops would be heading to Chicago next.
But Trump isn’t about to let something trivial like a judge’s ruling stop him - which is why he’s floating using the 1807 Insurrection Act if judges keep blocking his efforts like this.
Now, if you don’t know what the Insurrection Act is, it’s a federal law that allows the president to nationally deploy the US military or federalize state National Guard troops to stomp out what the president considers an insurrection against the US. []
Right, it hasn’t been used in decades - with the last time being back in 1992, while George H.W. Bush was president.
In that case, it was requested by then-California governor Pete Wilson - who asked for help addressing riots in Los Angeles. []
But we’ve also seen it used against the wishes of local governors - both Dwight Eisenhower and JFK did so in order to facilitate school integration after the Brown v Board of Education Supreme Court ruling.
Now, Trump has been open about his fascination with the Insurrection Act - on the campaign trail, he promised to use it to suppress unrest.
Then earlier this year, he came close to actually using it in LA during the protests against ICE. []
Which brings us to yesterday, when he once again told reporters:
“We have an Insurrection Act for a reason. If I had to enact it, I’d do that. If people were being killed, and courts were holding us up, or governors or mayors were holding us up, sure I’d do that.” (0:07-0:20)
And we’ve seen his underlings laying the groundwork to justify the Insurrection Act should Trump decide to use it.
With White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller saying that the administration is facing a “legal insurrection” and that these rulings against them amount to, quote, “an insurrection against the laws and Constitution of the United States.” []
And adding,
“We need to have district courts in this country that see themselves as being under the laws and Constitution and not being able to take for themselves powers that are reserved solely for the president.”
But it isn’t just the courts pushing back - local officials and representatives are also taking serious issue with these deployments.
You even had Senator Dick Durbin from Illinois grilling Pam Bondi about the deployments in his state during a Senate hearing today.
[0:02-0:08, 0:19-0:51 Durbin: “Why do you want to keep this secret so the American people don’t know the rationale behind the deployment of National Guard troops in my state.” Bondi: “Yeah, Chairman, as you shut down the government - you voted to shutdown the government - and you’re sitting here, our law enforcement officers aren’t being paid. They’re out there working to protect you. I wish you loved Chicago as much as you hate President Trump. Currently, the National Guard are on the way to Chicago. If you’re not going to protect your citizens, President Trump will.” Durbin: “I’ve been on this committee 20 years - that is the kind of testimony you expect from this administration. A simple question of whether or not they had legal rationale for deploying National Guard troops becomes grounds for a personal attack.”]
Then we also saw Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson take a stand against the deployments - signing an executive order banning federal immigration officials from using city property in their operations.
Specifically, the order prevents ICE agents from using city-owned vacant or designated parking lots for anything related to their operations - including staging and processing.
With Johnson saying,
“We will not tolerate ICE agents violating our residents’ constitutional rights nor will we allow the federal government to disregard our local authority.” []
Obviously, this wasn’t taken well by Team Trump - with Tricia McLaughlin, assistant secretary at the Department of Homeland Security, slamming Johnson in a statement.
Saying,
“His reckless policies not only endanger our law enforcement, but public safety. While he continues to release pedophiles, rapists, gang members, and murderers onto Chicago’s streets, our brave law enforcement will continue to risk their lives — without pay — to arrest these heinous criminals and make Chicago safe again.”
And the White House called Johnson’s order, quote, “a disgusting betrayal of every law-abiding citizen.”
Adding,
“Shielding the most depraved, violent criminal illegal aliens from justice is not only an insult to every Chicagoan, it’s also a dangerous intensification of Democrats’ lunatic ‘sanctuary’ agenda where criminal illegals come before American citizens.”
Which has long been Team Trump’s narrative in their crusade against sanctuary cities - that they harbor dangerous criminals and must be stopped at all costs, et cetera.
Right, since taking office, he’s sued 14 jurisdictions, threatened criminal charges against local officials who do not comply with federal demands, and conducted large-scale immigration operations on top of deploying the National Guard troops. []
Though many leaders within those jurisdictions are reportedly taking these situations in Chicago and Portland as evidence that Democrats are willing to fight back.
So we’re just going to have to wait and see how things play out from here - both regarding Chicago and Portland and then also the impact of those cases nationwide.
In the meantime, I’d love to know your thoughts about this whole thing in those comments down below.
-
A French influencer has been sent to jail for a “prank” where he faking syringe attacks on strangers.
Right, the influencer, who goes by Amine Mojito (Ah-Mean Mo-Hee-Toe - like the drink), went viral for filming and posting video clips where he could be seen sneaking up on people on the street and pretending to inject them with an empty syringe.
And specifically, those videos started to gain a lot of traction ahead of the World Music Day celebration in June — a time when France was gripped by panic over rumors of needle attacks at festivals and student parties.
And so with that, you had prosecutors bringing charges against him, alleging that he had contributed to and incited real fears, even if the syringes were empty.
And arguing that he was a repeat offender, noting that he had been accused of assault and harassing others in the past.
But Mojito, for his part, argued that he was “in his own world” and “unaware of everything,” telling the court:
“I had the very bad idea of doing these pranks by imitating what I saw on the internet, in Spain, in Portugal. I didn’t think it could hurt people. That was my mistake, I didn’t think about others, I thought about myself.”
But ultimately, the Paris Criminal Court convicted Mojito of “violence with a weapon not resulting in work incapacity.”
Sentencing him to 12 months in jail, six of which will be suspended.
With the court also fining him €1,500 (around $1,760), and banning him from possessing or carrying a gun for three years.
-
Then I have a few quick political stories you need to know today.
Starting with the news that Trump is now openly discussing the possibility of pardoning two high-profile convicted sex criminals: Ghislaine Maxwell and Diddy.
Right, as we talked about yesterday, the Supreme Court rejected Ghislaine Maxwell’s appeal to overturn her conviction for facilitating Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes.
With that coming a few days after Diddy was sentenced to four years for prostitution-related charges.
And when asked by reporters yesterday about whether he would consider granting Maxwell clemency, Trump responded:
TRUMP: “Well, I'll take a look at it. I'll speak to — I will speak to the DOJ. I wouldn't consider it or not consider. I don't know anything about it. So, but I'll speak — I will speak to the DOJ.”
REPORTER: “Why would she be a candidate for clemency, sir?”
TRUMP: “I don't know. I mean, I'd have to speak to the DOJ. I'll look at it. I'll — I have a lot of people who have asked me for pardons. I call him Puff Daddy has asked me for a pardon.”
REPORTER: “But she was convicted of child sex trafficking.”
TRUMP: “Yeah, I mean, I'm going to have to take a look at it.” 00:29 - 00:55
Okay, I mean, that alone is fucking wild — you have a reporter literally asking Trump “why would a convicted child sex trafficker be a good candidate for a pardon?” and Trump responding “I don’t know I’ll have to have my people look into to.”
And while it would obviously be absolutely massive if he pardoned Maxwell — or Diddy for that matter — he could also just be saying shit with no intention of following through.
I mean, at least when it comes to Maxwell, it would be pretty insane for Trump to pardon her when he’s still getting so much heat over the Epstein files debacle.
Go to Rocket Money to cancel your unwanted subscriptions.
-
But, in other Supreme Court-related news, you had the justices kicking off their new term by hearing an incredibly consequential case that could affect laws that protect minors from conversion therapy in nearly 30 states.
Right, specifically, the legal challenge being heard today was brought by a Christian therapist named Kaley Chiles, who is suing Colorado over its ban on “treatment” intended to change the sexual orientation or gender identity of kids under 18.
With Chiles arguing that the law violates her right to free speech in talk therapy because it prevents her from talking about her own viewpoints.
But Colorado’s Attorney General has hit back by noting that the state law only applies to minors and still allows people of ANY age to seek conversion therapy counseling from religious organizations — just not from therapists who are licensed by the state.
Arguing that states have the right to require licensed therapists and medical professionals to obey established standards of care, and that the ban on conversation therapy is meant to protect minors from substandard care.
Right, as lawyers for Colorado have noted in court, there is a “mountain of evidence” showing that conversion therapy is not only ineffective but actively harmful.
In fact, every major medical organization from the American Medical Association to the American Psychological Association has rebuked the practice.
Pointing to research showing that conversion therapy doesn't work and can actually cause deep depression and suicidal thoughts in people under age 18.
So, as a result, we saw a wave of states enacting laws banning conversion therapy in the 2010s — with that, of course, including Colorado.
But, because so many states have similar laws, the way the Supreme Court ultimately rules in this Colorado case will have MASSIVE implications that go way beyond one state.
Right, if the Supreme Court rules that Colorado’s law does infringe on free speech, it could either send it back down to a lower court for additional consideration OR declare that it is unconstitutional and strike it down.
And if it chooses the second option, that would likely invalidate similar bans on conversion therapy in the nearly 30 other states that have implemented laws meant to protect their own residents from a practice that is widely considered to be dangerous.
-
If you live in California, I have some great news for your eardrums.
Daddy Gavin Newsom just signed a law that bans streaming services from cranking up the volume on commercials to make them louder than the content being streamed.
Right, and this is actually a pretty significant move because federal law already requires TV and radio broadcasters to make sure that commercials are the same average volume as the programs they interrupt.
But those laws do not apply to streaming services — as anyone who has gotten the sonic blast from a midroll ad on YouTube can confirm.
But, under California’s new law, starting next July, major streaming platforms like Netflix, Hulu, Prime Video, and our home base YouTube — they will all have to start complying with the federal regulations on volume that traditional broadcasters are bound by.
Right, and the timing here is also notable because it comes as many streaming sites have introduced tiered subscription models in the last few years that require people to pay more if they don’t want to hear ads.
So it’ll be really interesting to see if other states follow California’s lead here.
And meanwhile, you had Newsom cheering the decision, saying in a statement:
“We heard Californians loud and clear” — pun probably intended — “and what’s clear is that they don’t want commercials at a volume any louder than the level at which they were previously enjoying a program.”
