Tyler Robinson ‘not guilty’ plea in Charlie Kirk case: Candace Owens makes chilling declaration – ‘lies will be exposed’

Notably, authorities had arrested Utah native Tyler Robinson and charged him for Kirk’s murder, but Owens remained unconvinced. She even pointed fingers at TPUSA’s senior leadership and asked questions of Kirk’s widow, Erika, who is the new CEO, only to be met with staunch backlash online. However, now, Robinson entering the not guilty plea appears to have vindicated Owens, and she’s put out a lengthy post taking potshots at naysayers.

Here’s what Candace Owens said.

She then wrote “Go find every single worthless influencer who lied and gaslit you for months about this case, claiming that Tyler Robinson turned himself in and subsequently admitted his guilt.”

Owens added “We simply do not hate these people enough. What they actually want is for the American court process to run ‘guilty until proven innocent’. It is utterly monstrous to insist that someone should be put be death before they are given a fair trial. And while a few of these influencers do it out of sincere stupidity, the majority of them do it for money…”

She further continued “We are at the beginning of this trial and every one of their lies will be exposed by the end of it.”

Owens’ statement drew mixed reactions with some supporting the podcaster and others stating that entering a not guilty plea does not mean the person didn’t actually do the crime.

“Wait, what??? He plead not guilty? I thought he turned himself in and admitted everything. I’m thinking Erika is going to have to take back her ‘I forgive that man…that young man’ statement,” one wrote. Another added “Candace, This is the same move you keep running. You take a documented fact… Robinson surrendered with his family the day after the shooting, and a set of alleged admissions that prosecutors have now put in court (the note, the texts to Twiggs, the in-person statement, the Discord post) and you reframe the people who reported those things as liars who “gaslit” the public. Then you park the whole thing behind “not guilty until proven innocent,” as if a routine arraignment plea suddenly erases the preliminary-hearing record.That’s not precision. That’s an offramp. The phrasing is just tight enough that you can later say you never denied the surrender happened, never said the texts weren’t real, only that other people overstated “admitted his guilt.” Meanwhile the audience hears you calling them prostitutes who want executions before trial.A not-guilty plea is what almost every defendant enters. It does not make the earlier reporting a months-long fraud. If your theory is that he didn’t pull the trigger or didn’t act alone, say that plainly and put the evidence on the table. Vague analogies and parsed outrage keep people subscribed. They do not make the case against the public record any stronger.”