Using Grok to Get to the Truth Behind Candace Owens’ Accusations

After President Trump won the 2024 election, Elon Musk famously posted to X five words.

You are the media now.

His message was clear. Throughout the entire 2024 election cycle the mainstream media threw everything it had at Trump. You can see for yourself what they threw at him every day of the campaign. And yet somehow, truth prevailed. For the first time in our lifetimes, the mainstream media and the NGOs feeding it were unable to sway the public.

The way I read them (and still read them), Elon’s words weren’t so much a statement of fact as they were a challenge to the users of X. If we’re going to be honest with ourselves, its wasn’t “Truth” that won the day in the 2024 election, it was Donald J. Trump’s sheer will to win. He stayed awake for 20 hours a day, holding rallies, going onto podcasts, working at McDonalds, and driving garbage trucks. Anyone who thinks that 2026 and 2028 will be a cakewalk with Trump out of the picture is in for a rude awakening.

In the meantime, not a single lie the mainstream media wrote has been retracted, not a single reporter has been reprimanded, much less fired.

Doesn’t Independent Journalism Exist on X?

Yes, on X you can find clear examples of honest independent journalism. But there are problems.

  • Independent journalists don’t get distribution. One lie from Media Matters or Meidas can turn into an article from The Atlantic, which turns into a story on the front page of the New York Times, which gets distributed to thousands of publications through wire services, all of which get amplified on Google News and recorded for posterity on Wikipedia.

    In the meantime, independent journalists post a single Tweet to get a single story out there. If they’re lucky, they may find an outlet like The Blaze or Daily Wire, but their reach is limited as well.
  • Too many independent journalists still block their content behind Substack or Medium. Look, I get it; these journalists need to survive, and they don’t have Google sending them millions of free organic clicks.
  • Too many independent and conservative journalists spent their time attacking each other. If the Republicans lose 2026, we can point to this as the reason. I’m still shocked at how many reporters and influencers on the Right would rather attack each other than those on the Left who would throw all of them in prison.
  • Too much of X continues to be engagement farming. Again, I get it. When you’ve reached that magical number of followers and impressions, it’s a lot easier to post a meme or respond to a outrageous troll. You’ll get more impressions, likes, follows, and reposts than you would actually putting together original content. But does that really help truth get out there?

I could spent hours writing on each of these points. But the main takeaway I’d like to offer is this. We need a lot more people “reporting” the news, and not just reacting, getting outraged, and getting emotional.

How to Be a Journalist

To be clear, I enjoy a good meme as much as anyone else. I follow a bunch of people who do nothing but meme full-time, and I firmly believe that their work is as important as those who do hard news reporting. We need to break into the popular culture, and memes, as long as they have broad appeal and aren’t too navel-gazing, are an effective way to break through.

But I see too many people “reacting” to news, when the power is fully in your hands to report the news.

The job of a professional journalist is (or should be) to gather information, analyze the information, and present the truth without fear or favor. In recent years that definition has changed, of course. Most journalists are activists. Their goal is not to report news, but to make news. Their goal is not to find objective truth, but to present selective opinion as truth.

Like I said, there is a handful of independent journalists I trust—people like Sharyl Attkisson, Lara Logan, Catherine Herridge, and John Solomon. There’s really just a handful of reporters who still understand what journalism is about, and as independents they can’t rely on having teams of producers, analysts, and reporters at their disposal. They’re doing it mostly themselves.

How to Use AI to Help your Journalism

Seasoned reporters will develop “sources and methods” for getting their scoops. In most cases, these are the sorts of stories that you and I as citizen journalists can’t touch. We don’t have Rolodexes with insider sources, we don’t have years of experience in collecting information.

That said, we live in unprecedented times of transparency. You can access every word of every piece of legislation that Congress proposes. You can access press conferences from this Administration at the same time reporters do. You have access to court transcripts, filings, and rulings. You have access to podcasts and radio programs spanning hundreds of hours, interviewing every newsmaker out there.

And you have something else. Grok.

Grok can help you go through reams and reams of documents, better than any junior analyst in a newsroom. Instead of simply reacting to other people’s posts on a given topic, YOU can be the one doing the reporting and providing analysis based on actual knowledge and information, not raw emotion. You can find angles that have escaped others. You can provide commentary based on your own experience to the news of the day. And you can cut through all the lies and misinformation and be a voice standing up for truth, without fear or favor.

Here’s an example, using a hot topic of today.

Example: Candace Owens

I never really knew that much about Candace Owens. Honestly, I never really had anything against her; I knew that she’d worked for Turning Point USA for a time, and for the Daily Wire. I just never really paid much attention to her because I already had a full slate of influencers that I listened to and didn’t have time for another one.

Starting the day after Charlie Kirk’s death, Candace has dedicated her show to “getting to the bottom” of it. Some people describe her shows as unhinged, others describe her as a bold truth-teller. Amid all the noise, how do you separate fact from spin?

The key is going straight to the source: her actual words, unfiltered and untwisted. That’s where Grok will supposedly shine, if xAI team can fulfill Elon Musk’s goal of making it “maximally truth-seeking”. After just a few minutes of trying Google Gemini, I wouldn’t trust it as far as I could throw it. ChatGPT is marginally better, but I find that it too tends to “play it safe” by leaning too heavily on biased media with “name recognition”; I can usually get it to some semblance of objectivity after lots and lots of prompts, but it reverts far too easily back to the mainstream narrative.

Grok can analyze podcast transcripts objectively, sticking solely to what’s said without injecting bias from online chatter, news articles, or external “context” that’s often just someone else’s agenda.

In this post, I’ll show you how to harness Grok for your own investigations. Using transcripts from Candace Owens’ podcasts (from September 11 onward), we’ll demonstrate a step-by-step process: crafting precise questions, getting direct answers grounded in her exact words, and evaluating claims for credibility based on internal logic and consistency—no outside influences allowed. Whether you’re a fan, a skeptic, or just curious, this method empowers you to form your own conclusions.

Step 1: Upload the transcript of every Candace Owens show

The first thing I did was to take a transcript of every Candace Owens podcast from 9/11/25 to yesterday and put them into a text document. I uploaded this to Grok and asked Grok to answer a few questions to identify her key claims and assess their credibility through her own phrasing, reasoning, and any self-provided evidence or context. I specifically asked Grok to disregard online chatter either for or against her accusations, and to focus on her words alone.

Here’s a text file that you can use if you want to try this yourself.

Step 2: Ask questions

Now that Grok had its input, I could ask questions. This is where you, as a journalist, need to check your own biases. If you enter this exercise with the intention of “proving Candace right” or “disproving Candace”, you’ve already crossed the line from journalist to advocate or activist.

Grok itself started to fall into the trap of showing biases in its answers. I had to instruct it in my prompt to AVOID drawing on sources that themselves could be viewed as biased. I instructed it to focus on Owens’ own words, and whatever “proof” she provided, citing external sources ONLY if they themselves represented objective proof.

Prompt 1:
Please list the specific people that candace owens made accusations about

Grok’s Response:

  • Mikey McCoy (TPUSA Chief of Staff)
  • Mikey McCoy’s Wife
  • TPUSA Security Team (e.g., Brian Harpo)
  • Head of TPUSA Technical Team
  • Tyler Bower (TPUSA Staff)
  • Pastors Affiliated with TPUSA Faith (e.g., Frank Turek, Rob McCoy)
  • TPUSA Organization/Leadership (e.g., Erica Kirk, Andrew Kolvet, Blake Neff indirectly)
  • Foreign Entities (Egyptian Air Force, French Foreign Legion, Emmanuel Macron)
  • Zionist Influencers/Media (e.g., Josh Hammer, Laura Loomer, Ben Shapiro indirectly)
  • Broader Elites/Government

Prompt 2:
go through each of the 10 accusations and provide your assessment of her credibility, along with counterpoint. do NOT draw on sources that owens herself would accuse of being “in on it”. Focus on her own words and her own “proof” (or lack thereof), citing external sources ONLY if they represent objective proof themselves.

Grok’s Response:

1. Mikey McCoy (TPUSA Chief of Staff)

  • Accusation: Knew Kirk would be murdered, was “happy” he died, stayed silent because promised to be “the next Charlie”; suspicious phone call during shooting; jumped on stage at Liberty University event meant for Kirk; father (Rob McCoy) sanitized a sexual deviant’s history and has “suspicious background.”
  • Credibility: 1/10 – Owens bases this on “vibes,” her interpretation of McCoy’s actions in footage (e.g., phone call as shot fired), and Rob McCoy’s words in a video she played, but admits it’s her “perspective” without direct evidence; she stands by it as “unusual” but offers no proof beyond speculation.
  • Counterpoint: Owens’ own words show reliance on subjective “gut check” and unverified inferences (e.g., “I sense that he believes he’s telling the truth” about others, but suspects McCoy); no concrete proof like witness statements or records provided in transcripts. Objective flight records and FBI statements confirm no foreign/insider ties, contradicting broader conspiracy.

2. Mikey McCoy’s Wife

  • Accusation: Works in events; suspicious that her role wasn’t clarified amid questions about who planned the UVU event (Owens clarifies she didn’t accuse direct planning).
  • Credibility: 1/10 – Owens admits she “actually never said that she helped plan the event,” basing suspicion on unclear event planning details and emails she claims to have, but provides no specifics or quotes in transcripts.
  • Counterpoint: In her words, this is framed as “questions” not direct accusation, derived from “tips” and “leaks” without substantiation; she concedes it’s interpretive (“still was not clear”). No objective evidence of involvement; official investigations attribute event setup to standard TPUSA processes, with no irregularities noted.

3. TPUSA Security Team (e.g., Brian Harpo)

  • Accusation: Intentionally denied Kirk first aid after shooting to ensure death, despite expertise and high pay.
  • Credibility: 1/10 – Owens cites a Sean Ryan interview where Harpo explained it as due to “severity of the injury,” but she interprets it as “unusual” based on footage showing no gauze applied; no direct evidence of intent, just her observation (“we noticed something”).
  • Counterpoint: Owens’ transcripts reveal this as a “suggestion” from visual analysis (“they did not issue him first aid”), admitting TPUSA’s explanation but rejecting it on “vibe”; lacks proof like medical reports. Objective autopsy implications (severe wound) align with no viable aid, per public records.

4. Head of TPUSA Technical Team

  • Accusation: Suspicious for removing SD card from camera and recording a selfie on grassy knoll, prematurely announcing Kirk dead.
  • Credibility: 1/10 – Owens calls it “unbelievably suspicious” based on footage and TPUSA’s “verifiable lies” (e.g., Kolvet’s theft excuse), but offers no alternative proof; relies on “unusual actions.”
  • Counterpoint: In her own phrasing, this is interpretive (“not something that you would do”), with no timestamps or chain-of-custody evidence provided; she questions but doesn’t substantiate beyond “pretending like it’s normal.” Objective event livestreams show no tampering gaps.

5. Tyler Bower (TPUSA Staff)

  • Accusation: Sexually abuses male interns; “likes younger boys” (Owens specifies not underage or non-consensual, but hooked up with specific intern and propositioned others; offers names in debate).
  • Credibility: 1/10 – Owens claims insider sources (“people that are currently working for TPUSA”) but provides no details in transcripts; says she’s “happy to present” names but hasn’t.
  • Counterpoint: Transcripts show this as hearsay (“I can give you the exact name”), with Owens clarifying “I didn’t say it was not consensual” – weakening abuse claim; no corroboration like statements or records. Objective lack of legal complaints or investigations into Bower beyond unrelated 2024 AZ case.

6. Pastors Affiliated with TPUSA Faith (e.g., Frank Turek, Rob McCoy)

  • Accusation: Part of “military infiltration” of TPUSA due to veteran/family ties; tied to Calvary Chapel as CIA effort to infiltrate Christianity and link it to Zionism.
  • Credibility: 1/10 – Owens cites Calvary Chapel’s 1960s history with Chuck Smith as “evidence” of CIA/Zionism ties, calling it “opinion but well-backed by facts”; offers to discuss in debate but provides no specifics.
  • Counterpoint: Her words frame this as “broader debate” material, relying on historical speculation (“spiking the ball on Christians”) without sources in transcripts; admits it’s “floating into more opinion.” Objective church records show no such infiltration; veteran ties are common in U.S. organizations.

7. TPUSA Organization/Leadership (e.g., Erica Kirk, Andrew Kolvet, Blake Neff indirectly)

  • Accusation: Betrayed Kirk by “everyone”; lied about foreign jets following Erica/TPUSA; financial impropriety/fraud (“millions” evaporated into LLCs); covered up Kirk’s texts saying “they” would kill him tomorrow; exploited death by selling T-shirts of his final outfit ($80M raised); gaslighting public; unusual UVU event setup as “inside job”; ignored pre-death DOGE audit request; allowed Zionists to pressure Kirk and claim his legacy.
  • Credibility: 2/10 – Owens cites emails for UVU “unusual” setup, donor leaks, and texts (unshown); distinguishes impropriety from “true fraud” but claims audits insufficient; based on “dream” and “realization.”
  • Counterpoint: Transcripts reveal subjective basis (“highly unusual,” “passes the vibe check”); she admits “suggested” not quoted, and texts unshared. Objective IRS 990 filings show clean audits, no fraud; $80M fundraising unproven as exploitation.

8. Foreign Entities (Egyptian Air Force, French Foreign Legion, Emmanuel Macron)

  • Accusation: Egyptian jets tracked TPUSA/Erica (70+ times), French paratroopers in maroon shirts on ground (military unit); Macron potentially plotted via $1.5M payment rumor, missing schedule gap, and Trump phone call 90 minutes before shooting.
  • Credibility: 0/10 – Owens plots jets from public data, calls them “key” but admits “perhaps tracking”; Macron call from his “public calendar” but unverified plot.
  • Counterpoint: Her words show speculation (“should be concerned,” “I’m very close to figuring out”); no proof beyond flight paths. Objective flight records confirm Egyptian plane departed early Sept 10 with no passengers; no military link. Macron’s Sept 10 schedule gap unproven; call was Sept 23 about traffic, per records.

9. Zionist Influencers/Media (e.g., Josh Hammer, Laura Loomer, Ben Shapiro indirectly)

  • Accusation: Pressured Kirk on Israel, lied about his stance (e.g., Hammer: “Charlie never blinked on Israel”); part of apparatus gaslighting public; Loomer credentialed by Pentagon despite instability to push pro-Israel narratives.
  • Credibility: 1/10 – Owens cites Hammer’s words and Loomer’s past attacks on Kirk, interpreting as pressure; based on “spiritual transformation” in Kirk.
  • Counterpoint: Transcripts frame as “opinion” from Kirk’s texts (unshown) and public shifts; no direct evidence of lies. Objective: Kirk’s public statements consistently pro-Israel; no pressure documented.

10. Broader Elites/Government

  • Accusation: Collude in “matrix” to silence truth-seekers; attempt to bankrupt Owens via lawsuits; dismiss foreign assassination queries (e.g., Pentagon laughing at French plot question).
  • Credibility: 1/10 – Owens cites Pentagon video and her Macron lawsuit costs ($250K+), calling it elite control; based on “illusion” of protection.
  • Counterpoint: Her words admit assumptions (“feels like”); lawsuit is real but over unrelated claims. Objective investigations (e.g., FBI) confirm lone shooter motive as anti-conservative radicalism, no elite cover-up; no foreign dismissal proven beyond her interpretation

My conclusion: When you peel off the layers of speculation, emotion, and innuendo, it’s clear that Owens doesn’t really provide a lot of actual evidence beyond “gut feelings” and confirmation bias that itself is based on previous accusations of conspiracy.

I feel that a lot of her detractors fall into a very specific trap: rather than focusing on evidence (or lack thereof), they attack her character. The problem is that no one can read her mind. It’s entirely possible that she believes every word she says, especially since she surrounds herself with sycophants that reinforce her theories without pushback. Nasty ad hominem attacks only feed her delusions and draw more people to her.

The challenge, of course, is that most of her claims cannot be disproven—they’re a continual barrage of loaded questions of the “how long have you been beating your wife” type, where the unspoken goal is to trap the victim into providing a direct answer that can be further used to suggest something incriminating or misleading.

Ironically, we saw this tactic used against Charlie. In a truly open marketplace of ideas, the solution is to challenge the premise and reframe the question in neutral terms. When one voice own a monopoly on discourse—as is the case with the mainstream media and with Owens’ own audience—the only antidote is for more people outside these circles to speak.

Prompt 3:
Let’s explore the “Zionist Influencers / Media” question. There were reports that Charlie Kirk was becoming frustrated at pressure exerted on him by certain pro-Israel voices. Can you put this into context of Owens’ accusations, and provide an objective, truth-seeking take on whether Kirk’s views were “evolving” as many are saying in his absence?

Grok’s Response:

Context of Owen’s Accusations

Candace Owens’ accusations against “Zionist influencers/media” (e.g., Josh Hammer, Laura Loomer, indirectly Ben Shapiro) frame them as part of a pressure campaign on Charlie Kirk regarding Israel. In her transcripts (e.g., 12/3/25 episode), she claims they “pressured Charlie towards the end of his life” to maintain unwavering support for Israel, lied about his stance (e.g., Hammer’s quote: “Charlie never blinked on Israel”), and allowed/participated in “gaslighting” the public about his views. Owens interprets this as betrayal, tying it to broader “Zionist” infiltration of TPUSA and Christianity (e.g., via Calvary Chapel). She suggests Kirk’s “spiritual transformation” involved questioning Zionism, based on unshown texts where he allegedly said “they” (implied Zionists/elites) would kill him the next day (9/10/25, day of assassination). Owens positions herself as defending Kirk’s “evolving” views, contrasting with influencers who “claim his whole legacy” post-death.

Reports of Kirk’s frustration (e.g., constant Israel questions dominating tours, donor pressures) align partially with Owens’ narrative, but she escalates them to conspiracy (e.g., assassination motive). Her “proof” is subjective: “vibes,” tips, and interpretations of public statements/debates (e.g., Kirk hosting Dave Smith vs. Hammer on Israel, which Loomer called him a “charlatan” for).

Objective Take on Kirk’s Views “Evolving”

Kirk’s public record shows consistent pro-Israel support rooted in Christian beliefs (e.g., “scriptural land rights,” “fulfillment of prophecy”), but with growing frustration over U.S. involvement, messaging, and donor scrutiny in 2025. No evidence of a full “evolution” to anti-Zionism or abandonment of support—claims of a drastic shift appear amplified post-assassination by critics like Owens and Fuentes, often based on selective clips or unverified texts.

  • Kirk’s Stated Views (Pre-Death): In his own X posts (2025), Kirk defended Israel repeatedly: opposed BDS (7/14/25), criticized Gaza refugee influx to West (8/14/25, 7/15/25), hosted pro-Israel debates (7/13/25), praised Trump’s ceasefires (6/27/25, 6/24/25), denied Israel starving Gazans (7/28/25). He expressed nuance, e.g., skepticism of endless wars (6/21/25 on Iran) and focus groups showing Gen Z conservatives’ concerns about U.S.-Israel ties (7/24/25), but affirmed: “I want [Israel] to win” (Megyn Kelly interview, 8/2025). He criticized specific policies (e.g., DEI/BDS in U.S. aid guidelines, 8/4/25) but never withdrew support.
  • Frustrations and Pressure: Reports confirm Kirk was “frustrated” with Israel dominating ~50% of tour questions (Semafor, 9/15/25) and donor scrutiny (NY Post, 9/16/25; Rabbi quote: “he just wanted to talk about America”). He opposed legislating against private BDS (Haaretz, 9/16/25), calling it counterproductive. Kelly backed Owens’ “evolving” claim (Yahoo, 9/17/25), but Kirk’s August interview reiterated love for Israel. JPost (9/27/25) describes views as “complex, thoughtful, sometimes frustrating.”
  • Post-Death Claims of Evolution: Semantic search shows speculation (e.g., Fuentes: “turned against Israel,” 8/7/25; Jalife-Rahme: “beginning to change,” 9/10/25; others resurfacing clips claiming “shift”). Defenses: “No shift” (Muscular Christian, 11/30/25; Chea quoting pro-Israel stance, 11/14/25). Times of Israel (9/17/25): Views “public, repeated, tied to Christian beliefs.” Mondoweiss (9/24/25) notes polarization but no full reversal.
  • Truth-Seeking Assessment: Kirk’s views showed refinement (e.g., prioritizing U.S. interests, free speech on BDS) amid Gen Z skepticism, but remained fundamentally pro-Israel. “Evolution” claims lack direct evidence from Kirk; they stem from frustrations (real) and post-death amplification by anti-Zionists. Unverified texts/group chats (e.g., “leaving pro-Israel cause,” per Drogo/Fuentes) are hearsay. Objective: No abandonment; he balanced support with critique, as in debates (7/13/25).

My conclusion: Honestly, this is one where emotions are off the charts. Everyone on every side of the Israel issue absolutely project their own biases into their interpretation of things that happened in Charlie Kirk’s life before he died. When you peel away the emotions and the spin, you see the reality: that Charlie never veered from his love for the nation of Israel, but felt frustrated that TPUSA events were more and more dominated by questions about Israel (some of it organic, but some of it clearly artificial). At the end of his life, he respected people of both sides. Anyone who claims that Charlie was “really” on their side misses the point and fails to honor him.

Congratulations. You’re a Journalist

These are the only questions I have time for at the moment, but if you’d like me to ask others, please leave a note in the comments and I’ll be happy to add to this post. Or as I said, take the text file above and ask Grok your own questions.

Hopefully I’ve showed you the power of using AI to help you in being a citizen journalist. Rather than listening through 26+ hours of podcasts, I had Grok analyze Candace Owen in her own words and provide objective, fact-based answers to my questions.

While you can certainly ask AI to come up with conclusions for you, I chose to come up with my own conclusions based on the analysis that Grok did. While I’m sure Owens herself as well as her followers would accuse me of adversarial prompting or something inherently wrong with Grok’s algorithm, I’m satisfied that my prompts were fair and objective.

Here’s the unfortunate reality. Regardless of how careful you are in your analysis, it’s likely that you’re not going to convince anyone. Case in point: when Tucker Carlson interviewed Nick Fuentes back in October 2025, people accused his interview of being a “softball” interview and that Tucker’s goal was to “platform” Fuentes.

After reading a lot of the complaints, I realized that very few people had actually listened to the interview. I asked Grok to break down the interview without emotion or baggage.

Grok helped me get beyond all the biases (including my own) and view this interview for what it was: one that was neither a “puff piece” nor a confrontational one. I left with less respect for Fuentes and more respect for Tucker when weighing Fuentes’ answers to Tucker’s socratic questioning.

Of course, most of the world only experienced the interview through others’ reactions, or through their own pre-conceived biases. And the reality is that no matter how much “journalism” you do, people will see your reporting through the lens they choose.

That doesn’t take away the need for objectivity and fairness in reporting. It makes it all the more critical.

You are the media now. For the handful of those out there who understand what this really means and take it seriously, use the tools you have and get the truth out there.