Erika Kirk vs Candace Owens on Tyler Robinson | Experts Decode Every Nonverbal Signal

We had the best time doing the initial breakdown of the body language and behavior in this video, and we decided we'd revisit some of our favorite moments from it. >> Do you believe that Tyler Robinson murdered your husband? >> Yes, I do. >> Why do you think it is so hard for so many people to believe that reality? >> Cuz it's too simple. Again, everyone always has to think there's more to the story. Well, sometimes there's not. I've seen the autopsy report. I've seen our case pulled together. I've been in constant contact with our lawyers, our our the process the prosecuting team. I've seen it all. And let me tell you this, why in the world why should we prior to the trial lay all of our hands and cards on the table for the defense team to see to somehow then I don't even know what they would do with it, but what I what I do will say, and I want to get on the Egyptian plane thing, take a flight on that for a second. What I will say is what I'm worried about and I'm fascinated just from a legal standpoint to see how the United Healthcare trial pans out. And I say that because this is the first time where we are seeing the implications >> You're talking about Luigi Mangione. >> Correct. I'd prefer never to say any of their names. They do not even deserve the ounce of oxygen and breath out of my body. But what I mean is it's fascinating to see how social media will impact that core case. Just how it might impact mine. >> Are you worried Chris is not going to get a fair trial? Are you >> Well, I'm nervous that there could be a they'll they'll say we can't find a a fair jury. Like they're going to taint the jury pool. And in that case >> That's how widespread you think these conspiracies have gone? >> Yes, that's how mainstream they become. Okay. >> All right. That was fairly interesting. A lot going on with me. >> She says yes immediately. >> that Tyler Robinson murdered your husband? >> Yes, I do. >> No qualifiers, no softeners, which by itself I think is a solid marker of truth, but her body locks up. Her eye contact goes really wide, like she's looking out in the distance. Uh she's kind of doing a left-right scan, maybe it probably of the host, just kind of scanning back and forth, which we see people who are checking how their message is being received. I'm wondering what what is your opinion about this, like answer and then the freeze here. But I But I think the rest of her body language is congruent. It's telling. There's no hesitation, there's a change in cadence when she makes a point, there's a voice tone telling, her illustrators are moving on her hands. I mean, everything looks good. There's that pause, agreed, but it could be because she's heard this many different conspiracy theories, and I have a theory on that. But she has this many different conspiracy theories, she's prepared for a pushback. It can >> Yeah, I think I think the freeze there is is the rage and the sorrow, her trying to contain the the emotion. Cuz I think she has a legitimate, logical [clears throat] concern about about this, that you you you just won't be able to find a jury who haven't been influenced in some way. >> Well, I'm nervous that there could be they'll they'll say we can't find a fair jury. Like they're going to taint the jury pool. >> Seems totally legit legitimate to me, but it's hard for her to get that across because she's so consumed with the the despair and the rage and the and the sorrow. So I think she does a pretty good job of eventually getting to her logical point, but I think she's trying to control some strong emotions while she's doing that. >> that first part, where she answered so quickly, back to your thing, Chase, is because she knows the answer to that. I mean, she she knows what she thinks about that, and she's sick of hearing it. And I think she's offended by it. You know, as you would be as any of us would be when they say, "Oh, there's all this stuff going on." You're like, "No, this is what happened." You know, sometimes it's what is what exactly happened is what happened, you know, without all the the stuff around it, you know, then all the >> These These are statement killings. You know, I called this that the same thing with Luigi in the very beginning. These are statement killings. This is somebody satisfying their own Maslow all the way up. And I always say there's two kinds of on the continuum of people, if you think about people who are icon thinkers and people who are artifact thinkers are the terms I use. Icon means everything has more meaning than it appears to, like a church window. The whole story is encapsulated in one picture. On the other hand, you get animals who a bucket is feed and they'll check it 50 times a day. Somewhere in between there are where most of us are, but those conspiracy kind of folks who always need a complex answer because their brain can't take some kid crawled on a roof from 70 yd away and shot a guy with a hunting rifle. Well, I mean, if you see this shot, this is a horrible story, horrible thing, but trying to find a complex answer to this simple thing. I think she's dead on. Sometimes it's simpler than you think it is. Just silly. It's just But this is Satisfied this guy's Maslow is all it needs to do. It doesn't need to be 50 people involved. Cloaked is a sponsor for this video, and they asked me to do something I wasn't sure I wanted to see. So, I put my phone number into their site, and I couldn't believe what came back. You don't realize how exposed your personal information is till you actually see it being exposed. And it's data brokers selling your information, your phone, your email, even sensitive stuff. And they sell it over and over and over again. And the crazy part, you agreed to do this in the very terms that nobody reads. And every time you sign up for something, you're just feeding that machine. Most services try to clean all that up after the fact, but that's not the real problem. You keep creating that same problem every time you sign up for something. That's where Cloaked is different. It shows you where your data is exposed and it helps remove it. But more importantly, it lets you create burner emails, phone numbers, and usernames on the fly. So, when you sign up for something, you're not tied to your real identity. So, now they're not buying your information anymore. They're buying junk, and you're playing them. And on top of that, it monitors the dark web, filters spam calls, has a built-in VPN, password manager, and even a $1 million identity theft insurance policy. So, go to cloaked.com/tbp and you'll get a free security scan, and you'll see how exposed you are right now. It only takes a few seconds, and you'll see exactly what's going on out there. The link is below, so click it and get 30% off any subscription. I understand why there's so much so many people questioning this because I've seen that video with him jumping off the roof. I'm not seeing a gun in there anywhere. Granted, he may have thrown it out, you know, thrown it off or something and missed it. But, you know, you hear all you know, you know how long it would take to break that gun down. Well, you you've seen it on Instagram, but we know anyway. You know what I mean? It'd take a while when you're doing something like that for that thing not to show. So, I can understand that part, then then putting it back together, and then sending those those odd texts that happened. So, I can understand what's happening, but I think there's something There must be another layer of this trying to make it look that way for some I don't want to get into the the big conspiracy theory with about all that. I'm just saying I understand why she's um being argumentative or would be argumentative about that because and has an answer ready to go because she doesn't believe all that that stuff. >> Well, if you can kill a king, you can kill anybody. That's why people look for answers. >> the the horrific absurdity of of life is that some kid with a really bad plan but a plan can beat a security team who weren't expecting the kid with a bad plan. >> That's right. >> It's It's just the nature of stuff goes wrong, and it's and it's, you know, that's life. It's terrible. It's ridiculous. >> second kid. >> Absolutely ridiculous. Yeah. But, you know, and they they once somebody gets an idea, then there's the contagion of ideas. >> Maslow's Maslow's satisfaction, right there. >> Just the way, you know, it's the horrible way life is. >> Yeah. >> There's a lot of anomalies about the case as far as I know. I'm not an expert. I don't research it. It looks weird. There's a lot of stuff that does look weird. But, one thing in this video that looks weird to me is she's directing most of what she's saying at the flowers on the table. And not the interviewer, the host. And I don't It's not often to the distance. It's kind of right there at the table. And people usually look away to regulate emotion or to to access a memory. Not to stare at a neutral object while they're talking about a murder. I just thought that was unusual. And people cope in different ways. I'm not saying this indicates deception or anything. But, she goes off on the thing about United Healthcare. And Scott, I had a question for you. If if if you don't mind me getting put on the spot. >> No, I was going to say >> When people shift into procedural analysis when they're under stress, do you think we're seeing some kind of ego defense? Or is it somebody just maybe going to where they feel safe? What I think she's I think you've seen this more than all of us. >> I think she feels she's going to where she feels comfortable. That's why I think she's staring at the flowers. Because she's going to a spot and just talking. She's not talking at the flowers. But, she's So, she's just talking. She's got she knows what she wants to say. She's got these these packaged answers. Not specifically so I can guard my, you know, my my thoughts or whatever. But, she knows what she thinks about this. And so, she's got specific things she wants to say about it. So, I think it's more of being um the neutrality she's trying to go for with answering that question without seeming too aggressive, maybe. That's why she's she's doing this because she she knows what she wants to say, and she just aims at that and starts talking. I don't even think she realizes she's doing it. I've seen that a lot. I don't think I don't I don't think she even realizes that's what's going on, but she I think it's part of her part of comfort for her. >> If I had to add two things to that, what I would say is if you go and talk to children and you give them a task to take, for example, like one of my favorites is ask them to make the scariest animal on Earth, and they'll take parts of animals. You'll see moving their eyes around in their head. And I'm not going to tell you about eye movement, but then what they'll do is they'll come back to a spot as they work on combining the two and talk about it. And I think if she is not a person given to fits of rage and going at somebody, and this is pretty aggressive. I mean, look at This is pretty damn aggressive. Maybe it's a perception issue, Chase. Good question. Maybe it's a perception issue of I don't want to look you in the face and be that aggressive. >> Mhm. I think it is. >> So, let me add this to it. She's getting a great effect with the interview. Uh the interviewer is in full empathy uh with us. So, so whatever she's doing, whether she's doing it to the flowers or she's doing it to the interviewer, the interviewer is really responding. Also, the rest of the audience are responding. They respond to the kind of joke that she makes about flight, the word play there. >> And I want to get on the Egyptian plane thing. Take a flight on that for a second. What I will say >> So, she's she's managing to to get emotion. She's managing to get some humor in there with that live situation. I'm not sure whether that translates well to us in TV land here. Probably probably her performance makes more sense live in the room than it does out here for the for the camera. She She doesn't really play the camera a lot. I think she's playing the interviewer and the audience there. >> And you'd know that, Mark, cuz you you'd be able to You've seen that. >> Yeah. Yeah, I mean, you can see the audience responding. She's doing a great live theater job there. You see the interviewer go I'm trying to control my >> Right. Right. Yeah. >> The interviewer seems a little bit aggressive sometimes though, too. Like in that one she comes out and it sounds aggressive. She's probably not being aggressive, but I mean, she does kind of come in uh you know, a little bit hot on some of these. So, let's take a look at the next one. >> [clears throat] >> I don't know. That's a tough fellows. >> Do you believe that Tyler Robinson murdered your husband? >> Yes, I do. >> Why do you think it is so hard for so many people to believe that reality? >> Cuz it's too simple. Again, everyone always has to think there's more to the story. Well, sometimes there's not. I've seen the autopsy report. I've seen our case pulled together. I've been in constant contact with our lawyers, our the prosec- the prosecuting team. I've seen it all. And let me tell you this, why in the world why should we prior to the trial lay all of our hands and cards on the table for the defense team to see to somehow then I don't even know what they would do with it, but what I what I will say, and I want to get on the Egyptian plane thing, take a flight on that for a second. What I will say is what I'm worried about and I'm fascinated just from a legal standpoint to see how the United Healthcare trials pans out. And I say that because this is the first time where we are seeing the implications >> You're talking about Luigi Mangione. >> Correct. I'd prefer never to say any of their names. They do not even deserve the ounce of oxygen and breath out of my body. But what I mean is it's fascinating to see how social media will impact that court case. Just how it might impact mine. >> Are you worried Chris he's not going to get a fair trial? Are you >> Well, I'm nervous that there could be a they'll they'll say we can't find a a a jury. Like they're going to taint the jury pool. And in that case >> That's how widespread you think these conspiracies have gone? >> Yes, that's how mainstream they've become. >> All right, this has been pretty interesting so far. What do you think about what we've seen, Mark? >> Uh yeah, I mean it's a it's a kind of a dog's dinner for for all kinds of good reasons of pinging between this the emotion, the dramatic, the ideological. Um I think it's quite understandable what's what's happening here, though it can read as a bit odd. Chase? >> Yeah, I think the bottom line uh if you just took one thing from any of this, grief doesn't always look the way you think it should. Sometimes it's there's a ton of rage in there. Sometimes it's totally numb, just an anesthetized. Sometimes it shows up with strategy, branding, and maybe a media plan. Uh I don't think that makes anybody guilty, but uh the trap is that we confuse performance with deception. That's the only trap I don't want you to fall into. Greg? >> Yeah, agreed. What what I think you got to pay attention to here is a complex situation. A woman whose husband has been murdered, who is fighting off conspiracy theories that she doesn't believe are true, and a prominent person within her own movement, her own party, who is purporting some of those things. All that tied together with people who want more answers than she can possibly give, and she has to contain emotion while she's standing in front of people and trying to continue a movement and picking up the cloak of somebody much taller than she is. I think that's very difficult, and I think you could assign deception to this, and you'd be wrong. >> Scott, what do you >> I agree with you 100% there. Uh I thought this was a good one because it's somebody being uh thrust into a situation that she never thought she'd be into. She's trying to act the way she thinks her husband would act in this situation, act the way she thinks other people who are heroes to her would act in this situation when something like this happens. You know, you've got to be the leader. You've got number one. She's got to go back and be the leader. She's got to be the one defending everything. She's got to be the one telling what she thinks and what she thinks is going to happen. So, I think all this is new to her and I think we're seeing somebody who worked their way through this new person they've got to become. This new and I hate to say new creation, but the new personality they've got to take on to be able to handle all these old jobs and little jobs. All these huge jobs she's got on her now. So, from raising her children, being a widow, dealing with the the situation that that you know, the world saw happen. >> [snorts] >> So, I think it's fairly interesting to see how she changes and it'll be interesting to see what she's like in about a year from now. So, maybe we'll check back in then. >> The shooter or the alleged shooter, you think they're a patsy? >> Of course they're a patsy. I mean, come on. It's just so dumb. It's so He wasn't even on campus that day. They can't show us one clear image. Not even one. All of these cameras, Turning Point has everything in 4K. So, shouldn't you have caught the shooter on the roof in 4K? Like you had cameras everywhere that day. Every inch of that campus is covered. >> was someone else that was running across and it wasn't Tyler? >> Absolutely. Someone that just I don't even know if there was a person that sprinted that day because everyone's forgetting there was also a news report that came out a week before that somebody was on the roof and a professor came out and waved the person. Now, they may have been dropping off a gun, dropping off a screwdriver. I don't know. >> Cuz there is one video like one of the students had panned out where he was running. >> video that I had to track down, military. >> Really? >> Everybody's military in my story. >> Really? >> All right, Chase, what do you got? I don't think there's a lot here to debunk. I think she believes what she's saying. I agree there's a ton of anomalies here that look extremely suspicious. I don't know about the case. I'm not investigating it, but I just talked to Shawn Ryan about this and it really looks like the caliber of the rifle is 100% false. But there is a mountain of other seriously bizarre anomalies here. And I don't look into the case much, but I know there's a lot of people who are still looking into it and I hope that if any of you are watching right now, maybe you can educate us down in the comments, give us some facts. But I know that Charlie privately reported intense pressure from pro-Israel donors to stay super aligned. He described these funding consequences if you didn't fall back in line and I think fall back in line is a direct quote. These texts showed super increasing stress tied specifically to Israel-related positions. And his ideological softening kind of showed up right after that that pressure started escalating, which is just bizarre. So there's some really weird stuff that happened throughout this whole thing. Scott, weigh in. >> All right. We're seeing the the cues of someone relaying what they believe or they drew what they really believe is true. And it she's using that confirming tone or cadence is speeding up. You see the rise in volume and the escalation of her you know, hand gestures and arm gestures. And at the same time, um I think she's again trying to persuade um this guy or the listener or the viewer or whatever to believe what what she's saying. Because um to present this the way she is, I I don't know yet. So the set up I'd say like this, the set up is is for persuasion. It's to get someone to believe what you're saying. In this situation, it's nothing big, it's not nothing you know, that's that's overreaching or too much, but it's there. It's it's there. So this is the most animated she's been so far. And a lot of volume she's been she's talked at as well. So there's this thing with volume and confidence. And most people think the louder you are and the more you move around and the and the bigger your gestures are the more apt you are to be believed and to be seen as confident, whereas it's in my opinion it's just the opposite of that. If you're getting If you're transmitting something that's really important and really serious, then your voice gets a little quieter and you slow down a little bit. You make sure every word is understandable and your gestures aren't all flailing around and real big and all that kind of thing. The more influential person will will won't move as much. They'll be a little little They'll be still comparatively to the person who's who's the other person if you'll keep an eye on both of them. >> This isn't a baseline, big time though. >> Yeah. Yeah, I agree. >> Yeah, we're I'm going to talk specifically Yep. Yep. >> Yeah, but I'm talking about how it's moving and how it's changing. All right, Greg, what do you got? >> Yeah, so first of all, let's say she's an entertainer and what she sells is complex story. I mean, I've I've never candidly, the only time I've ever seen her is on political commentary during elections. I've never watched her. Sorry. But so I didn't know what to expect and a lot of people follow her with true belief kind of ideas. And she is saying what she believes. What is interesting is what you're seeing is a persuasion technique that all of us have used at some point. Let's first say a conspiracy theory doesn't have to know the truth. Period. Period. All of these conspiracy theories deal in uncertainty and lack of knowledge and it could be. They can point to some things that are anomalies and then let you fill in the blanks and that's masterful. It's powerful and it is entertaining. What's interesting is watching her. She's very confident again. She's got the big illustrators. She's supporting her message like you would expect. This is her wheelhouse. She's telling you something. She's got extended fingers, extended thumbs. But she doesn't adapt her to the back of her neck, which we usually associate with some rising level of stress. Then we hear these upward lilts at 4K, not on campus that day. >> Also, shouldn't you have caught the shooter on the roof in 4K? He wasn't even on campus that day. >> Those are key points that she's going to use because they're anomalies. Now, we didn't poke and prod and say here's why. No counters, the guy's there to support her and and her story. So, she's gone back now to convincing as she's telling her story. She even does a little head wobble when she says everybody's in the military. >> military >> Really? And a lip compression at the end of it. That's uncertainty. That's secondhand information, of course, but handing this stuff off is part of it. The other thing to pay attention to, and let's pay really close attention now on, is when I'm trying to persuade you, one of the most powerful tools is to let you contribute to the story and you're creating part of the soup. You'll taste your own ingredient. And if you watch her, she's doing that with him. She'll make good eye contact and nod when he says something that finishes her sentence. I teach this in rapport building all the time. If you want to build rapport, test the waters and see if the person can finish your sentence, you're getting there. And the way you convince people is by not as much eye contact, usually, and then you notice her making hard eye contact and rewarding his statements. So, she is trying to persuade. Now, that's the nature of what she does for a living and is well within her baseline. So, it doesn't mean deception, but what it surely means is we've entered into part of what she does for a living. Mark, what do you got? >> Yeah, I agree agree with everybody uh here. Um here's what I want to push at. Uh look, first of all, her tonality is is the on this, which is the Charlie Kirk the subject here is Charlie Kirk shooting. Um her tonality is and is much the same as her religious beliefs, much the same as the Trump stuff. There's There's no I think it's as you were saying, Chase, it's it's all pretty much baseline for her. There's nothing too extraordinary. How I mean, extraordinary, she's a great entertainer. She's a brilliant communicator in many ways. You know, fascinating to watch, compelling to watch, uh entertaining, and not much changing here. Here's what I do pick up on. And and yeah, as Chase says, like if If have facts which are positive things that are provable, like put them down below, but ideas of what isn't, don't put those below because that's not fact, that's just a gap. And we will find people find God in the gap, people find conspiracy in the gap. We will fill the gap with whatever is most on our mind or we we most lack at the time. So, don't fill don't put gaps, put this definitely happened and here is and that's what she's doing. She's creating gaps. In fact, she's doing it Chase to your point with the same methodology that you're pointing to of the sci-ops which is category destruction. Okay, the philosophy of Derrida which is you take a category and you completely destroy it. So, she goes, "I don't even know whether that person was the person they said. In fact, I don't even know whether it was a person." >> even know if there was a person that's printed that day. >> Wow, category gone. Bang, gone. That is the way you demoralize people because we have the moral of well, we know a person is a person is a person. Now we've got well, it could be another person to the person you said. Now a person doesn't even have to be a person anymore. They can be I mean, I saw one, but maybe it wasn't one. That is beautiful postmodernism. It's absolutely what you know, Chase if you're right, the receipt of sci-op is is putting forward. She's using those techniques on us right now. So, everybody's part of the problem right now. Maybe I am as well. Maybe I'm part of the problem. We're all part of the problem. We're all doing all the same stuff. Yeah? We're all We're all doing it. It's highly entertaining. >> But we I think we stepped in your wheelhouse there, Mar. I think you got your all tied up. >> no, but it's great cuz it's beautiful postmodernism, isn't it? It's It's beautiful. You destroy category, you make a new one, you destroy that, you make a new one. It's It's wonderful creativity. >> Let's throw in the asterisk here that it's likely very likely not a conscious deliberate effort to do those things. >> I mean, possibly. >> I think it is. >> Possibly. >> Yeah. I mean >> Yeah, I don't know, ladies. >> you all don't think is like give us give us evidence positive >> I got to go. I got to go. >> No, I don't know. There's a gap. I don't know. So, let's say it isn't. >> I think she's doing it on purpose. I think she's trying cuz there's way too many of these things happening there. There are too many red flags from the first video to this video that are showing that that I've seen a thousand times in someone who's conning somebody else or trying to work somebody else or or grab their persuasion to persuade them to think something else. So, that's the one I'm going to go with. That's the one I have to go with it cuz I got to call them like I see them as you you guys do. >> Yeah. >> Well, what she does for a living is to sweet people >> That yeah, that's what I mean. That's what I think you're seeing. This is all her baseline. She speaks like this all the time and she's passionate about this cuz she's talking about her friend being murdered. So. >> Yeah. >> I think the persuasion is turned up a little bit, but I don't think it's deliberate. I think her outcome is in her mind and conscious. I don't think the technique is. >> It's not a good look. >> What she has to sell what she has to sell is that persuasion that she does best. I mean, that we we're all dancing around and saying, you know, communication all that's persuasion. What she does is she draws in followers. I've talked to people that some people who are disaffected from her now, but they loved her clarity of thought and that kind of thing. So, she if she comes across as questioning her clarity of thought she loses subscribers, followers, watchers for her >> ultimately the entertainment here is to open up is to destroy categories, open up a gap, pull people into that suggesting that you'll be able to answer it and then open up more gaps and more gaps and more gaps and never close the loop because people keep watching and watching come back next week and we'll answer that question. Well, another category just exploded. What you thought was that is not that anymore and and and I can't >> This is George Lakoff. Have you read any >> It's it's it's postmodernism. It's it's entertainment. I mean, people have been doing it since the Greeks. >> Look Mark, you're all worked up. >> Yeah. I mean, well, because people think people think this just got invented. >> The next one is even more >> been around for thousands of years. >> Plato. >> Yeah. >> You want to talk for a little bit? >> No, I meant Play-Doh like the dough. Like you get >> Oh, oh, I thought you said Play-Doh. >> You used to go to school with a kid who ate that stuff, you know. >> Yeah, yeah. >> Okay, sorry. I mean, I thought I saw an opening there. Sorry, dude. I was going in. >> The shooter or the alleged shooter, you think they're a patsy? >> Of course they're a patsy. I mean, come on. This was so dumb. It's so He wasn't even on campus that day. They can't show us one clear image, not even one. All of these cameras, Turning Point has everything in 4K. Well, so shouldn't you have caught the shooter on the roof in 4K? Like you had cameras everywhere that day. Every inch of that campus is covered. >> else that was running across. It wasn't Tyler. >> Someone that just I don't even know if there was a person that sprinted that day because everyone's forgetting there was also a news report that came out a week before that somebody was on the roof and a a professor came out and waved the person. They may have been dropping off a gun, dropping off a screwdriver. I don't know. >> Cuz there was one video like one of the students had panned out where he was running. >> video that I had to track down, military. >> Really? >> Everybody's military in this story. >> Mark, how's things looking How are things looking to you so far? >> Well, things are looking Look, it's very enjoyable. As I've said it before, very enjoyable. I don't know what is accurate or inaccurate about any of this and I don't think necessarily she knows, but she does believe and it's great to see such a great entertainment around that belief, but I think all in all, that's what we've we've got here. Um Uh and and may she keep on doing it cuz it's uh it's it's thoroughly uh engaging. I would take it with a pinch of salt, but that isn't for everybody. And some people will want to take it as a full meal and you and you're very welcome to. Uh just don't try and convince me of it cuz, you know, I'll I won't be convinced of it until I am. Until I am. And then so maybe give it a go. Uh Chase, what do you think? >> I think she genuinely believes a lot of what she's saying. Uh she stays on her normal baseline here throughout this whole thing. This is how she speaks, how she delivers in every other video that I've seen of her. And I think she means what she's saying. I think she's extremely passionate about about this topic cuz it was a friend of hers. Um and I think that she is coming around to one idea that I agree with of this right versus left argument is the Truman Show uh designed for sedated people and I think is a staged war to keep you cheering for the actors and blind to the real script writers in this Truman Show. Greg? >> Make no mistake, politics is bread and circus. Make no mistake. It is to keep you quiet. But aside from that, I don't see deception. I see her very clearly in five videos demonstrating what she's saying. Now, she falls short on facts. That's what conspiracy does. That's typical. There's no reason to have a conspiracy if you can prove something. It's no longer a conspiracy it theory, it's now fact. It's now a solved crime. So, that's what people pedal and do. I think she's a fantastic communicator. Whole body communication, language, eye contact, movement, all of that. And clearly a good entertainer. So, I Look, I first time I've watched her in any depth other than being on like CNN or Fox or whatever channel she showed up. And it's clear why people would follow her. Not only because she may be a good role model, maybe somebody who is espousing their beliefs, and clearly can illustrate what she's thinking, but also, she doesn't appear to be deceptive. This to me shows me she believes what she's saying. Good enough for me. Scott, what do you got? >> Yeah, I she does look like she's being honest. She definitely looks like that. But what she's saying doesn't sound like it should sound to me personally from the from the people I've talked to that weren't being uh honest or they were or they were trying to get something done that I wasn't aware of that was trying to be done, or they're trying to do that to somebody else. So, when I see something like somebody get have happened to what happened to Charlie Kirk, there's somebody up here, and they've looked at that and said, "Okay, this came from there." And then all of a sudden, it's his security guards with a thing around their neck talking to each other about it and stuff. No. I break it down to the most logical thing and say, "Let's look at that first. Let's make sure everything's cool there." But all these things where there's the prints aren't right and all this, if you're going to say that, be able to prove it. Say, "Here's who told me." Because it's a big deal when you bring something like that out. You're bringing out you're bringing out fireworks at that point. So, if you're going to do that, then let's see where you got it. Don't None of this, you know, they he was military. I got it from military. No, I don't do that. Say, "So-and-so gave me this. He's in the He's in the Navy or he's in the Army or he's in the Marines, whatever it was." I want to know. Yeah, everybody wants to know. That's what makes it believable when you tell something like that. That's what keeps it out of the conspir- conspiracy part of it, like Greg said. >> So, you're saying everything is is doesn't look as it should. >> This is another good one, fellas. And we'll see you next time. >> [laughter] >> The Behavior Panel >> Today, we're going to talk about Candace Owens. She's been in the news lately. Greg, why don't you tell us about the case we're going to take a look at? >> What does it say? >> Just that that's that'll do fine. >> [laughter] >> Just that that'll that would be fine. >> That's all we should use. >> Just do that. That's >> [music] [music]