Piers Morgan’s latest attempt to play prosecutor on Piers Morgan Uncensored turned into exactly what viewers have come to expect, noise, interruptions, and a lot of finger-pointing dressed up as journalism. This time, the target was conservative commentator Candace Owens, and the subject was her past remarks involving Turning Point USA and the death of Charlie Kirk. What followed was not a clarification exercise but a combative spectacle that said far more about Morgan’s approach than Owens’ actual claims.
From the start, Morgan came in hot, accusing Owens of recklessly floating conspiracy theories and, more specifically, alleging that people connected to Turning Point USA were “complicit” in Kirk’s murder. Owens immediately objected, insisting Morgan was distorting her words. That did not slow him down. He repeatedly talked over her, insisting she had explicitly accused TPUSA figures of being complicit in the murder itself.
Owens pushed back, again and again, clarifying that her statements centered on a cover-up, not the act of killing. She explained that her remarks were made while discussing how conspiracies historically operate, using the assassination of President John F. Kennedy as an analogy. In her telling, large-scale events often involve layers of people who conceal information afterward, even if they were not directly involved in the act itself.
Morgan was not interested in nuance. He kept demanding names, proof, and public accusations, seemingly ignoring Owens’ repeated statements that she does not believe anyone at Turning Point pulled the trigger. “Do I think someone at Turning Point pulled the trigger? No. Obviously, I don’t think someone at Turning Point pulled the trigger,” she said flatly.
The exchange escalated when Morgan asked whether Owens believed anyone at TPUSA had advance knowledge of Kirk’s death. Owens acknowledged that she had privately identified two individuals she believed warranted further scrutiny, information she said she had communicated to Kirk’s widow. She also made clear she lacked concrete evidence and refused to name them publicly for that reason.
That did not stop Morgan from accusing her of recklessly alarming a grieving widow. Owens responded that raising concerns privately and urging further investigation is not the same thing as making public accusations. That distinction seemed lost on Morgan, who appeared determined to corner her into a soundbite rather than understand her position.
As the interview spiraled, Owens broadened her critique, accusing the corporate media of discouraging legitimate inquiry and repeating what she called “fed slop.” She argued that journalists increasingly demand final conclusions before allowing questions, a standard that conveniently shuts down investigation. Morgan, for his part, bluntly told Owens she might be the one “spewing bull***t” to the public.
PIERS: “It may be that the person in the media spewing bullsh*t to the public is you.”
CANDACE: “The difference between me and you is that I have the courage to take the risks and ask the questions … You wait until it becomes popular, and then you change your mind.” pic.twitter.com/bjwNDvpCVQ
— Chief Nerd (@TheChiefNerd) December 17, 2025
Owens fired back, accusing Morgan of playing the same role he has before, dismissing uncomfortable questions until the narrative shifts and then pretending he was always skeptical. She pointed to historical examples, including post-JFK media behavior, and said the public no longer trusts gatekeepers who tell them not to believe their own eyes.
The clash was chaotic, loud, and often circular. But beneath the shouting was a familiar divide. One side insisting questions themselves are dangerous, the other arguing that refusing to ask them is worse. Morgan chose to police the questions. Owens chose to keep asking them. Viewers can decide which posture looks more like journalism and which looks like damage control.