Inside the Conflicting Stories: Candace Owens, Brian Harpole, and the Battle Over What Really Happened to Charlie Kirk

Today’s breakdown is a bombshell. The narrative surrounding Charlie Kirk’s death is splitting into two sharply conflicting versions—and now, for the first time, we can see exactly where they diverge.

Candace Owens has been releasing explosive information, much of it coming from inside Turning Point USA. According to her, Charlie was placed outside that day because Turning Point leadership insisted on holding the event in a dangerous open-air amphitheater—despite warnings and despite objections.

But now, Brian Harpole—head of the security team that protected Charlie—is sitting down with Shawn Ryan and offering a very different version of events.

This article puts both accounts side by side and tries to parse out what’s real, what’s spin, and what doesn’t add up.

Brian Harpole’s Story: “We Had No Choice”

Harpole begins by rejecting the idea that the security team ignored obvious risks. According to him, his team ran their standard “workup”: building their own perimeter, setting up bike racks, marking danger zones, and assessing vulnerabilities.

And the amphitheater at UVU?
He says it was objectively terrible.

They were surrounded by elevated buildings covering 180 degrees—any tactician’s nightmare.

But he insists their hands were tied.

According to Harpole:

UVU required the event to be held outside

The school refused alternative locations

His team “did not get to argue”

The venue was non-negotiable

In his telling, TPUSA didn’t choose the dangerous location. The university forced it.

He also adds another factor: Charlie preferred open events. Ticketing, screening, or metal detectors discouraged counterpoints and minimized organic debate. Openness brought confrontation, and confrontation brought conversation—and that was Charlie’s mission.

But Harpole’s explanation raises an uncomfortable question:

If the security team truly believed the venue was dangerously exposed,
why not refuse outright?

Why not tell Charlie:

“I cannot keep you alive here. We’re not doing this unless we add bulletproof shielding or move indoors.”

That conversation apparently never happened.
Or, if it did, it wasn’t pressed hard enough.

Candace Owens’ Account: “Turning Point Insisted on the Dangerous Venue”

Candace Owens’ information—sourced from inside TPUSA—directly contradicts Harpole.

According to her:

UVU offered multiple indoor and outdoor options

UVU explicitly recommended against the amphitheater

UVU warned it was unsafe and impossible to control

Turning Point HQ insisted on the outside location

Most disturbing:
TPUSA rushed the event approval at lightning speed.

The UVU chapter requested Charlie on July 18.
Within two weeks, HQ had boots on the ground scouting venue options—an unusually aggressive timeline.

Owens says she already knows Turning Point employees deliberately pushed the amphitheater location. She’s demanding their names and insisting this detail will be confirmed soon.

She also emphasizes something Harpole does not:

Security at TPUSA events traditionally depends on ticketing, screening, controlled entry, and basic behavioral assessment.
None of those were possible in an open amphitheater.

Owens found the decision deeply suspicious—and she wants the planners held accountable.

Two Stories, One Deadly Venue

We now have two versions of the same decision:

Brian Harpole:

“UVU forced us to use the amphitheater.”

Candace Owens:

“TPUSA forced UVU to approve the amphitheater.”

The contradiction is massive.

And neither side has produced the decisive evidence yet.

But we will soon—because Owens revealed that FOIA requests can and already have been filed. Messages between UVU police chief Chief Long and TPUSA will show who pushed the venue, who resisted, and who ignored safety warnings.

Whoever is lying will not be able to hide for long.

Damage Control—or Genuine Testimony?

One thing is clear:
TPUSA is in deep damage-control mode.

We saw this with Eric Bolling’s easily debunked comments.
We saw it with Rob McCoy’s contradictions.
We see it now in defensive behavior, lawsuits, and sudden PR pushes.

Is Harpole doing the same?
Or is he simply repeating what he was told?

He does not appear to be a habitual liar.
He’s credentialed, experienced, and composed.
But his interview is laser-focused on a single goal:

Clear his team. Shift responsibility. Protect his employer.

He admits:

No failures

No miscalculations

No preventable oversights

Everything bad, he says, came from UVU.

That’s exactly the kind of positioning a company under pressure tends to use.

Meanwhile, Candace is operating from a fundamentally different place.

Her friend is dead.
She’s furious.
She’s receiving leaks from TPUSA employees and donors.
She has no incentive to soften anything.

If anything, she wants names.

The Narrative They Don’t Want: “Charlie Wanted the Danger”

A new line seems to be emerging—not from Candace, but from others:

“Charlie knew the risks.”

“Charlie wanted open events.”

“Charlie insisted on no screening.”

This is a dangerous narrative—because it shifts responsibility toward the deceased man who cannot defend himself.

Candace refuses to let that framing stand, and she’s right.
Whatever Charlie preferred, security has an obligation to override unsafe conditions.

That never happened.

Where This Leaves Us

Right now, we’re left with:

One insider-backed account

One security-team-backed account

A glaring contradiction

A university that isn’t talking

FOIA requests in progress

Employees inside TPUSA leaking information

A donor confirming Candace’s claims

A security director shifting blame

A dead man at the center of all of it

The truth will not stay hidden.
Text messages, emails, security correspondence—these will surface.

And when they do, we will know:

Who pushed the unsafe venue.
Who ignored warnings.
Who overrode the safer options.
Who is lying now.

More breakdowns of Harpole’s interview are coming, including the moment he fully throws UVU under the bus, and the things he conveniently never mentions.