Name: Tucker Carlson Weighs in on the Charlie Kirk Theories
Uploaded: 2025-12-10T21:15:02.000Z
Description: Watch the stand-up comedy video 'Tucker Carlson Weighs in on the Charlie Kirk Theories' from Theo Von Clips on Comedy Buff. Published 2025-12-10. Transcript available.

Watch the stand-up comedy video 'Tucker Carlson Weighs in on the Charlie Kirk Theories' from Theo Von Clips on Comedy Buff. Published 2025-12-10. Transcript available.

What is one of the things about the Charlie Kirk assassination that rubs you
the wrongest, do you feel like?
About the investigation into it?
Yeah, I mean, it's the whole thing with the kid and the images and they see him
at like a Dairy Queen.
Some of the, it's just like, it's all so confusing, you can't decide what to
believe.
But what do you, but also the fact that it doesn't feel like there's any
presentation from the FBI or something about reality.
So it feels like it's just, it's internet sluice filling in all the pieces.
What do you think?
I've called directly to say that, just as an American, as a friend of Charlie's
who is interested in seeing justice and is interested in preserving our system
beyond this year.
Like, if you want the system to continue, you have to satisfy people that the
system is real.
And if they're convinced that it's not real, at some point they'll overthrow it.
That's just going to happen, okay?
Oh, but Mom Donnie!
Yeah, how do you think we got Mom Donnie?
Or, and you think Mom Donnie's radical?
The dude went to Bowdoin.
It could be a lot more radical than that.
And we're going to get that.
They have a good sailing team there.
Do they?
Yeah.
At Bowdoin?
I thought it was Bowdoin, but it's not.
No, it's Bowdoin.
Known really for sodomy, but also sailing.
I didn't know that.
Oh, I didn't know that, huh?
Enthusiastic.
Actually, I think they've got one of the top-rated varsity sodomy teams in the
country.
Hard to starboard.
Zen users.
But anyway, here's what I am concerned about.
Two, well, a lot of things.
One, he acted alone.
Tell me how that worked.
I don't, you know, none of us really act alone.
It's hard to go anywhere by yourself, too.
Thank you.
Exactly.
He acted totally alone.
Okay.
You're going to have to prove that to me.
It's totally possible.
Anything is possible.
Weird things have happened.
We'll continue to.
But if you're, that's not my default assumption, and it shouldn't be yours.
And their default assumption was we acted alone.
Really?
Why do you think that?
What about life suggests that people typically act alone?
What was the last time you acted alone in anything?
I don't go, you know, right?
So, A.
B, we know that people had foreknowledge of this because they posted about it
on X and said,
Charlie Kirk is going to be killed on this date, and he was.
Is that true?
Yes, it's true.
But were they just guessing?
Was it a guessing thing where every day they posted that?
Maybe.
Maybe.
Have those people been interviewed?
Have they been hauled into FBI HQ and had a long conversation with how they
knew that?
Like, let's get really specific.
Why did you post that?
Who have you talked to?
Like, if I were doing this investigation because I spent my whole life doing
non-criminal investigations
called journalism, like, what do we know is true?
How do we find out?
Call everybody.
Be open-minded.
It's like a very, it's the same process.
If I was doing this investigation, they would be at the very top of the list.
We know because we've got public postings on Twitter that people know, just
like a 9-11.
We know people bet against American Airlines and the banks that were in the
World Trade Centers.
They shorted those stocks.
Those people clearly had foreknowledge of 9-11.
Who were those people?
We still don't know.
So I would start there.
But so you're saying that just the fact that there could possibly be some foreknowledge
should be investigated.
Well, there was foreknowledge because they were, I saw the tweets.
Got it.
And so there were, I saw at least two that said, you know, everything's going
to change
when Charlie Kirk gets to the college in Utah.
Okay.
So those people, I'm not saying they're a part of a conspiracy, but they have,
there's evidence
that they had foreknowledge.
Okay.
So that's where you begin.
And then I could, I could go on.
Like, tell me how this guy who seemed normal became a radical trans furry
murderer.
It's not enough to tell me, oh, trans, I'm not pro-trans, by the way.
But was that the guy or his boyfriend?
Well, exactly.
Exactly right.
Tell me how this guy became so radicalized that he murdered a stranger.
Just to, I'm not saying it didn't happen.
I'm saying I want an explanation for how it happened.
Why wouldn't I?
I agree.
Oh, we can't talk about that because it'll, you know, prejudice the jury pool.
Really, you're, you've told the world that you have both a confession from him
in his text
to his boyfriend and the murder weapon with his fingerprints on it.
I think you've got a pretty solid case.
So why is it so difficult to just explain, dude, 9-11, the rubble was still smoldering
whenever I was on television on 9-11.
So I remember this very well.
People were, instantly appeared, oh, this is Islamic radicalism.
Here's where it comes from.
We're going to invite this guy in from Columbia who's just written a book about
it.
And like the whole explanation was ready to go.
This, there's no even attempt, which is both good and bad, but there's no
attempt to explain
how this happened.
Like it's, that's the key question we all want to know.
Yes, I know Charlie Kirk just got, was murdered by gunshot.
Got it.
Saw it.
Why?
And they never want to tell you.
Yeah.
Was the kid on SSRI?
Shut up.
Oh, you're a Scientologist?
And they immediately start name calling you.
Oh, you're Candace Owens now?
No.
Yeah.
But if you're just a curious person who wants to know why your friend got
killed, it's a
friend.
Well, that's kind of what I am.
That's what I am.
Right.
That's what I'm saying.
Right.
It's just, it's a human person.
Well, that's what Candace is.
So maybe, so I have said from the beginning, if you don't like what Candace Owens
is saying,
why don't you call her and offer a more plausible explanation for what happened?
Oh, she's bad.
She's bad.
Okay.
I mean, I like her a lot.
I don't think she's bad, but I love her actually.
But let's just stipulate she's bad.
But why wouldn't you do that?
Because I don't agree with some of the stuff that the rabbit hole she goes down,
but I don't
even know.
But I like the fact that she likes to dig in the garden, you know?
So it's like, I like the fact that she's curious and that obviously if people
weren't
resonating with what she's doing, then nobody would be paying attention.
But you know how many places I go, people will come up to me and be like, and I
don't think
they want to say something to me.
They'll be like, I love Candace Owens.
Dude, did I say what happened to me in Oslo this summer?
Mm-mm.
I was with my family, salmon fishing.
White Oslo.
Some people call it white Oslo as well.
It's not very white anymore.
It isn't?
Nope.
Aw, it's low.
But anyway, I'm in Oslo, Norway, and just for one night, we were fishing, and
we go to
Oslo to fly out, and I'm walking down the street with one of my daughters,
Tucker Carlson!
I was like, shit, I'm going to get yelled at in Oslo.
This guy runs up to me, Tucker Carlson, yes?
You know Candace Owens?
I was like, yeah?
He goes, tell her I love her.
And I texted Candace, I was like, that is fame when people come up to you just
because
of the reflected glory of someone you know.
Yeah.
So why do people like Candace so much?
She's an amazing broadcaster, yes.
Because they sense in her, she might be wrong.
Is she lying to me?
Not on purpose.
They sense the purity of her intent.
That's the truth.
And I can say, as someone who's dealt with government officials my whole life,
I'm not vouching
for everything Candace claims.
I don't even know a lot of what she claims because I'm working on other stuff,
and it makes me
sad also.
But the point is, do I trust Candace more than I trust your average DOJ
official?
Are you joking?
It's not even close, dude.
Yeah.
It's not even close.
It's not even close.
We can all be wrong, but who do I trust to try to tell the truth more?
Candace or your average DOJ official?
Opposite ends of the spectrum.
I'll just say that.
Yeah.
So it's just so crazy that people who are trying to figure things out are
getting ostracized,
you know?
Whether they're right or wrong or something, at least they're trying to have
some semblance
of like curiosity, which is really just kind of reframe.
If an official story describing the murder of your friend doesn't make sense,
and you find
yourself yelling at a podcaster for coming up with other theories, you're
barking in the
wrong direction.
Your anger should be focused on the people whose job it is, legally,
constitutionally, to get
to the answer.
And there's very little pressure on them, I notice.
Yeah.
And a great deal of pressure on Candace Owens.
And by the way, I've said this to a bunch of people, you know, off the record,
you know,
people I'm just talking to.
It's like, you know, what Candace is saying is clearly causing a lot of turmoil.
Is it true or not?
I can't assess it.
I'm not the FBI.
I'm a freaking podcaster.
But I do know how the system works, and it's really simple.
The FBI has this case, and of course, the state of Utah.
It's their job to not only find out what happened, but present it to the public
in a way that
restores some confidence that you can, like, have justice in this country, that
we have
functioning law enforcement.
I don't have confidence in that because there's a lot of evidence that we don't
have that.
So restore confidence by being honest and telling a story that makes sense.
So why, if they don't do that, and they haven't done that, they have not done
that, how can
you be mad at Candace Owens or anyone else for filling a vacuum that they left?
Yeah.
Well, Candace is bad.
Okay.
No.
The people with the authority are the ones responsible, and they're the ones
who should
be held responsible when there's a failure.
Not some podcaster, not me, not you, not Candace.
The people whose job it is.
Talk about, and it's always that.
It's always like, you know, you say, well, I don't know why Israel's committing
genocide,
and God's like, shut up, Theoban.
It's like, shouldn't you be mad at Israel for committing the genocide?
No.
Yeah, or shouldn't, why am I the one even asking about it?
Exactly.
Dude, I'm just a curious fucktard, dude.
You know what I'm saying?
I'm trying my best, but fuck, dude.
So we're not in a, we're not where we used to be, or we used to pretend we were.
Where we all thought we were playing by the same rules.
Right.
And the rules were, if you have a better argument than I have, then you win.
Yeah.
And may the best argument win.
We're so far beyond that.
And I think the murder of Charlie Kirk was the moment when we could just admit
it to ourselves.
This is a guy whose whole life revolved around the proposition.
Let's debate.
And they didn't want to debate whoever they is.
They murdered him.
And to be specific, who killed Charlie Kirk?
Well, I don't know is the short answer.
But when we do find out if we ever do, I doubt we will.
But if we do, I think, again, we'll not be surprised.
It's just all tentacles from the same octopus.
And the octopus is evil.
Right.
It's not an ethnic group.
It's not a country.
It's evil.
This is what evil is.
What is evil?
Evil is a commitment to deception and violence.
Period.
That's what it is.
So it's too easy to be like, oh, it's Netanyahu or Smotrich or whatever.
No.
It's evil.
It's existed from the beginning of time.
It will exist until the end of time.
And it has been the thing against which people have fought through all of
history.
It's evil.
It manifests itself in a million different ways.
But it's hallmarks are always dishonesty and violence.
It feels like we've been a bit afraid to stand up against evil.
Does that make sense to you?
Of course it does.
John Rich was just talking about it on your podcast the other day.
And I thought that that was a really neat episode.
Wonderful.
And I learned a lot about John Rich and just like his clarity of thought I
thought was really neat.
We were on a hunting trip and a pheasant hunting trip two weeks ago when we did
that.
He can shoot too, which is nice.
Can he?
He can.
He was bringing him down.
He had a lot of hits, I know.
But that, yeah, but we shouldn't be afraid of it and we shouldn't be.
So my struggle is against being shocked.
Like every time I learn something, I'm like, holy shit, I can't believe.
I'm so, I can't believe it.
Like this or that institution is corrupt or this or that person is lying.
And it's like, I'm acting like a child.
Why would I be shocked?
That's what this is.
What did you think it was, dude?
We live in a fallen world filled with dishonesty and violence.
It's my job.
All of our jobs are to fight against those things.
Yeah.
People always want to be in a war.
People always like, man, I wish I had something that was like a challenge in
the world.
It's like we are in a fight of good and evil.
We are.
And it's not to say that any of us are perfect or that we don't all have
mistakes or things that we wish we had done or not done.
But overall, it does feel like this is like a video game of good versus evil.
And you have to start to see that like you're a player in it.
One thing that I –
This is why you're so effective.
This is why, you know, at some point people may try to make you be quiet is
because you approach all of this with humility, which is one of the hallmarks
of good in my opinion.
Like almost every sentence you begin on this topic begins with, I'm no one to
judge and I'm not, you know, that is the posture.
Humility is the posture.
And one thing you notice about evil is its certainty, is its judgmental,
condemnatory quality.
You know, Mark Levin, you're evil.
You're a fascist, anti-Semite, Nazi, Islamist, whatever.
Its mirror image is what you just showed, which is, you know, we're all kind of
screwed up, but we're trying to get to the truth.
Like that is – that's the approach.
That's the posture.
That's the way to tell the truth.
Well, I think it's what most people are doing.
That's what most people are trying.
You know, I feel like –
Because that's truly honest.
Like I've been wrong about so much.
Am I really going to stand up and be like, I am positive this is like, no, I'm
doing the best I can.
That's the only honest way to approach it.
Thank you.

Tucker Carlson Weighs in on the Charlie Kirk Theories

What is one of the things about the Charlie Kirk assassination that rubs you
the wrongest, do you feel like?
About the investigation into it?
Yeah, I mean, it's the whole thing with the kid and the images and they see him
at like a Dairy Queen.
Some of the, it's just like, it's all so confusing, you can't decide what to
believe.
But what do you, but also the fact that it doesn't feel like there's any
presentation from the FBI or something about reality.
So it feels like it's just, it's internet sluice filling in all the pieces.
What do you think?
I've called directly to say that, just as an American, as a friend of Charlie's
who is interested in seeing justice and is interested in preserving our system
beyond this year.
Like, if you want the system to continue, you have to satisfy people that the
system is real.
And if they're convinced that it's not real, at some point they'll overthrow it.
That's just going to happen, okay?
Oh, but Mom Donnie!
Yeah, how do you think we got Mom Donnie?
Or, and you think Mom Donnie's radical?
The dude went to Bowdoin.
It could be a lot more radical than that.
And we're going to get that.
They have a good sailing team there.
Do they?
Yeah.
At Bowdoin?
I thought it was Bowdoin, but it's not.
No, it's Bowdoin.
Known really for sodomy, but also sailing.
I didn't know that.
Oh, I didn't know that, huh?
Enthusiastic.
Actually, I think they've got one of the top-rated varsity sodomy teams in the
country.
Hard to starboard.
Zen users.
But anyway, here's what I am concerned about.
Two, well, a lot of things.
One, he acted alone.
Tell me how that worked.
I don't, you know, none of us really act alone.
It's hard to go anywhere by yourself, too.
Thank you.
Exactly.
He acted totally alone.
Okay.
You're going to have to prove that to me.
It's totally possible.
Anything is possible.
Weird things have happened.
We'll continue to.
But if you're, that's not my default assumption, and it shouldn't be yours.
And their default assumption was we acted alone.
Really?
Why do you think that?
What about life suggests that people typically act alone?
What was the last time you acted alone in anything?
I don't go, you know, right?
So, A.
B, we know that people had foreknowledge of this because they posted about it
on X and said,
Charlie Kirk is going to be killed on this date, and he was.
Is that true?
Yes, it's true.
But were they just guessing?
Was it a guessing thing where every day they posted that?
Maybe.
Maybe.
Have those people been interviewed?
Have they been hauled into FBI HQ and had a long conversation with how they
knew that?
Like, let's get really specific.
Why did you post that?
Who have you talked to?
Like, if I were doing this investigation because I spent my whole life doing
non-criminal investigations
called journalism, like, what do we know is true?
How do we find out?
Call everybody.
Be open-minded.
It's like a very, it's the same process.
If I was doing this investigation, they would be at the very top of the list.
We know because we've got public postings on Twitter that people know, just
like a 9-11.
We know people bet against American Airlines and the banks that were in the
World Trade Centers.
They shorted those stocks.
Those people clearly had foreknowledge of 9-11.
Who were those people?
We still don't know.
So I would start there.
But so you're saying that just the fact that there could possibly be some foreknowledge
should be investigated.
Well, there was foreknowledge because they were, I saw the tweets.
Got it.
And so there were, I saw at least two that said, you know, everything's going
to change
when Charlie Kirk gets to the college in Utah.
Okay.
So those people, I'm not saying they're a part of a conspiracy, but they have,
there's evidence
that they had foreknowledge.
Okay.
So that's where you begin.
And then I could, I could go on.
Like, tell me how this guy who seemed normal became a radical trans furry
murderer.
It's not enough to tell me, oh, trans, I'm not pro-trans, by the way.
But was that the guy or his boyfriend?
Well, exactly.
Exactly right.
Tell me how this guy became so radicalized that he murdered a stranger.
Just to, I'm not saying it didn't happen.
I'm saying I want an explanation for how it happened.
Why wouldn't I?
I agree.
Oh, we can't talk about that because it'll, you know, prejudice the jury pool.
Really, you're, you've told the world that you have both a confession from him
in his text
to his boyfriend and the murder weapon with his fingerprints on it.
I think you've got a pretty solid case.
So why is it so difficult to just explain, dude, 9-11, the rubble was still smoldering
whenever I was on television on 9-11.
So I remember this very well.
People were, instantly appeared, oh, this is Islamic radicalism.
Here's where it comes from.
We're going to invite this guy in from Columbia who's just written a book about
it.
And like the whole explanation was ready to go.
This, there's no even attempt, which is both good and bad, but there's no
attempt to explain
how this happened.
Like it's, that's the key question we all want to know.
Yes, I know Charlie Kirk just got, was murdered by gunshot.
Got it.
Saw it.
Why?
And they never want to tell you.
Yeah.
Was the kid on SSRI?
Shut up.
Oh, you're a Scientologist?
And they immediately start name calling you.
Oh, you're Candace Owens now?
No.
Yeah.
But if you're just a curious person who wants to know why your friend got
killed, it's a
friend.
Well, that's kind of what I am.
That's what I am.
Right.
That's what I'm saying.
Right.
It's just, it's a human person.
Well, that's what Candace is.
So maybe, so I have said from the beginning, if you don't like what Candace Owens
is saying,
why don't you call her and offer a more plausible explanation for what happened?
Oh, she's bad.
She's bad.
Okay.
I mean, I like her a lot.
I don't think she's bad, but I love her actually.
But let's just stipulate she's bad.
But why wouldn't you do that?
Because I don't agree with some of the stuff that the rabbit hole she goes down,
but I don't
even know.
But I like the fact that she likes to dig in the garden, you know?
So it's like, I like the fact that she's curious and that obviously if people
weren't
resonating with what she's doing, then nobody would be paying attention.
But you know how many places I go, people will come up to me and be like, and I
don't think
they want to say something to me.
They'll be like, I love Candace Owens.
Dude, did I say what happened to me in Oslo this summer?
Mm-mm.
I was with my family, salmon fishing.
White Oslo.
Some people call it white Oslo as well.
It's not very white anymore.
It isn't?
Nope.
Aw, it's low.
But anyway, I'm in Oslo, Norway, and just for one night, we were fishing, and
we go to
Oslo to fly out, and I'm walking down the street with one of my daughters,
Tucker Carlson!
I was like, shit, I'm going to get yelled at in Oslo.
This guy runs up to me, Tucker Carlson, yes?
You know Candace Owens?
I was like, yeah?
He goes, tell her I love her.
And I texted Candace, I was like, that is fame when people come up to you just
because
of the reflected glory of someone you know.
Yeah.
So why do people like Candace so much?
She's an amazing broadcaster, yes.
Because they sense in her, she might be wrong.
Is she lying to me?
Not on purpose.
They sense the purity of her intent.
That's the truth.
And I can say, as someone who's dealt with government officials my whole life,
I'm not vouching
for everything Candace claims.
I don't even know a lot of what she claims because I'm working on other stuff,
and it makes me
sad also.
But the point is, do I trust Candace more than I trust your average DOJ
official?
Are you joking?
It's not even close, dude.
Yeah.
It's not even close.
It's not even close.
We can all be wrong, but who do I trust to try to tell the truth more?
Candace or your average DOJ official?
Opposite ends of the spectrum.
I'll just say that.
Yeah.
So it's just so crazy that people who are trying to figure things out are
getting ostracized,
you know?
Whether they're right or wrong or something, at least they're trying to have
some semblance
of like curiosity, which is really just kind of reframe.
If an official story describing the murder of your friend doesn't make sense,
and you find
yourself yelling at a podcaster for coming up with other theories, you're
barking in the
wrong direction.
Your anger should be focused on the people whose job it is, legally,
constitutionally, to get
to the answer.
And there's very little pressure on them, I notice.
Yeah.
And a great deal of pressure on Candace Owens.
And by the way, I've said this to a bunch of people, you know, off the record,
you know,
people I'm just talking to.
It's like, you know, what Candace is saying is clearly causing a lot of turmoil.
Is it true or not?
I can't assess it.
I'm not the FBI.
I'm a freaking podcaster.
But I do know how the system works, and it's really simple.
The FBI has this case, and of course, the state of Utah.
It's their job to not only find out what happened, but present it to the public
in a way that
restores some confidence that you can, like, have justice in this country, that
we have
functioning law enforcement.
I don't have confidence in that because there's a lot of evidence that we don't
have that.
So restore confidence by being honest and telling a story that makes sense.
So why, if they don't do that, and they haven't done that, they have not done
that, how can
you be mad at Candace Owens or anyone else for filling a vacuum that they left?
Yeah.
Well, Candace is bad.
Okay.
No.
The people with the authority are the ones responsible, and they're the ones
who should
be held responsible when there's a failure.
Not some podcaster, not me, not you, not Candace.
The people whose job it is.
Talk about, and it's always that.
It's always like, you know, you say, well, I don't know why Israel's committing
genocide,
and God's like, shut up, Theoban.
It's like, shouldn't you be mad at Israel for committing the genocide?
No.
Yeah, or shouldn't, why am I the one even asking about it?
Exactly.
Dude, I'm just a curious fucktard, dude.
You know what I'm saying?
I'm trying my best, but fuck, dude.
So we're not in a, we're not where we used to be, or we used to pretend we were.
Where we all thought we were playing by the same rules.
Right.
And the rules were, if you have a better argument than I have, then you win.
Yeah.
And may the best argument win.
We're so far beyond that.
And I think the murder of Charlie Kirk was the moment when we could just admit
it to ourselves.
This is a guy whose whole life revolved around the proposition.
Let's debate.
And they didn't want to debate whoever they is.
They murdered him.
And to be specific, who killed Charlie Kirk?
Well, I don't know is the short answer.
But when we do find out if we ever do, I doubt we will.
But if we do, I think, again, we'll not be surprised.
It's just all tentacles from the same octopus.
And the octopus is evil.
Right.
It's not an ethnic group.
It's not a country.
It's evil.
This is what evil is.
What is evil?
Evil is a commitment to deception and violence.
Period.
That's what it is.
So it's too easy to be like, oh, it's Netanyahu or Smotrich or whatever.
No.
It's evil.
It's existed from the beginning of time.
It will exist until the end of time.
And it has been the thing against which people have fought through all of
history.
It's evil.
It manifests itself in a million different ways.
But it's hallmarks are always dishonesty and violence.
It feels like we've been a bit afraid to stand up against evil.
Does that make sense to you?
Of course it does.
John Rich was just talking about it on your podcast the other day.
And I thought that that was a really neat episode.
Wonderful.
And I learned a lot about John Rich and just like his clarity of thought I
thought was really neat.
We were on a hunting trip and a pheasant hunting trip two weeks ago when we did
that.
He can shoot too, which is nice.
Can he?
He can.
He was bri