Sign up for the Slatest to get the most insightful analysis, criticism, and advice out there, delivered to your inbox daily.

The official story of Charlie Kirk’s death is that the leader of the conservative group Turning Point USA was fatally shot in September during a campus event by Tyler Robinson, who is accused of killing Kirk out of loathing for his anti-trans views. This story is backed by text messages from Robinson’s phone, a police investigation, and the fact that it happened on camera in front of thousands of people.

Then there’s the story of what happened that comes from Candace Owens, a highly influential voice on the far right whose podcast consistently pulls several million listeners. Owens’ story of Kirk’s death involves possible betrayal by Kirk’s own wife, Erika. It also involves a shadowy cabal of billionaires and government agencies and possibly even future-bending technology from ancient Sumeria. And, inevitably, nefarious involvement from Israel and the Jews. Owens’ story is backed by innuendo, exaggerations, outright falsehoods, and, in several instances, messages delivered through Owens’ own dreams.

That story is front and center this week, after Owens released the first two episodes of her new series Bride of Charlie. The episodes suggest that Erika Kirk is not the sympathetic grieving widow she appears to be—and that something sinister is going on with the new leader of Turning Point USA.

The series’ two-minute trailer, released Monday, landed to outrage from much of the rest of the conservative pundit class, which balked at the idea of inflicting such pain on a grieving widow. Elsewhere on X, where so many of Owens’ supporters tend to operate, the documentary was hailed as a powerful strike against Zionist-controlled elements of the Republican Party and its affiliates.

For the rest of America not versed in the internecine fights of the online right, this situation may seem baffling—or even trivial, given the ludicrous nature of Owens’ claims. But Candace Owens’ declaration of war against the rest of the mainstream right actually matters for all of us. Because ultimately, the Owens–TPUSA rift is the story of an identity crisis that has brought the right to its current inflection point. It may very well have ramifications of that for the country’s future: for its relationship with Israel, for the future of the conservative movement, and for whether the modern GOP opts to work within the existing system or tries to blow it all up.

To get to the biggest question: What is Owens claiming here?

Well, only the first couple episodes of this series have come out, and she hinted in the show that she could do one to five more episodes. (To be clear, this “investigation” is not a slick documentary, as the trailer teased, but just special branding of her regular show, consisting of Owens talking to the camera.) In the first episode, she mostly discussed reasons she thinks Erika is a suspicious character: biographical details that, to Owens, don’t seem to line up, such as Erika’s claims about her father’s involvement in her life and her birth date on official documents.

That being said, the trailer teased the claims she’s likely to make, rehashing arguments she has made in recent months. In episodes that followed Charlie’s assassination, Owens has implied that Erika Kirk conspired with other Turning Point USA leaders and even foreign governments to have Charlie killed. She suggested that this had to do with Erika’s own personal ambitions, as well as larger geopolitical schemes to do with Charlie’s ideology. She also suggested that Erika’s work with a charity in Romania was actually a cover for child sex trafficking. And she speculated that Erika groomed and sexually harassed a 15-year-old girl.

Foreign governments? Betrayals? Grooming? What exactly is Owens getting at?

There’s no tidy, unified theory here. Owens is maximalist in her approach, tossing out anything that to her seems funky or confusing or too coincidental, even when they lead to theories that contradict one another. It seems she thinks that she can retain her credibility by never stating things definitively but instead simply looking for answers.

She likely won’t come out and state, point blank, that Eirka had Charlie killed. Instead she’ll point out what’s “weird” and “doesn’t add up” about Erika’s behavior. When people inevitably express outrage, she’ll respond by asking them why it’s so bad to raise questions. Don’t they want to figure out the truth about what happened to Charlie? Isn’t it fair to ask questions about Erika, given that she’s now in charge of a massively powerful organization? 

Is there any kernel of truth to anything she’s saying?

Absolutely not. Any discrepancies in Erika’s biography can be explained by the normal messiness of human life and memory, plus mundane bureaucratic issues. The Romanian claims are based on coincidences and tangential connections—Erika’s (legitimately criticized) appearance alongside a pastor accused of enabling a missionary to traffick children in Romania, plus speculation about both figures operating in Romania. The grooming claims........

© Slate