There is a nasty fissure opening in the conservative movement and, once again, it centers on a loud personality who prefers spectacle to substance. Candace Owens has staked a dangerous claim that the killing of Charlie Kirk was more than the brutal act it plainly was, and her public insinuations have forced honest conservatives to choose between comforting conspiracies and hard accountability. Dave Rubin’s recent roundtable — where he discussed a DM clip with Gad Saad and Viva Frei about what might be motivating Owens — shows that even allies are asking the same blunt question: what is she trying to gain?

Let’s be clear about the facts we already know: Charlie Kirk was fatally shot during a Turning Point USA event on September 10, 2025, a tragedy that stunned the right and left alike and left his family and movement in mourning. Authorities arrested a suspect and the country watched as the case unfolded and evidence was gathered, not as some sitcom script for online fame. This is not a moment for muddying the waters with insinuations that lack public proof and risk turning a legitimate investigation into a feeding frenzy.

But facts have never stopped a good conspiracy from spreading, and Owens has leaned into that market with alarming enthusiasm. According to reporting, she has floated theories implicating Turning Point USA insiders and hinted at foreign influence, promising to “name names” while offering little in the way of verifiable evidence. Conservatives who care about credibility should be alarmed: rumors and innuendo handed to a massive platform turn into accepted truth for millions, and that cost is paid in lost trust and damaged reputations.

The reaction on the right has been predictably messy, with prominent figures publicly rebuking Owens and others trying to mediate behind closed doors. This internecine warfare plays straight into the hands of the left and the media, who delight in watching our house burn from the inside while they rebuild their political capital. If we are to be a serious political force, we must demand evidence over drama and stop letting personality cults dictate the narrative about crimes and investigations.

Rubin and his guests on the roundtable offered what many sensible conservatives are thinking: when politics and media intersect with personal brands, the incentives to escalate, sensationalize, and monetize grief are enormous. Whether the motive is vengeance, attention, or plain grift, the effect is the same — it fractures our coalition and hands the moral high ground to opponents who accuse us of harboring extremists and conspiracy peddlers. Conservatives should call that what it is: destructive to our cause and disrespectful to the memory of a man who deserved better than to be dragged into a cheap ratings war.

There’s room for skepticism in a free society and for asking hard questions about powerful institutions, but skepticism requires evidence and discipline. The moment you pivot from asking questions to manufacturing narratives, you stop being a dissenter and become a sensationalist, and that’s a distinction we ought to stop letting slide. If Owens has proof, she should present it to the proper authorities and the public; if she doesn’t, then conservatives must pressure her to stop and focus on rebuilding a movement that can win elections and defend liberty, not just dominate social media.

This is a call to the rank and file: stand for truth, not theater. Protect Charlie Kirk’s legacy by refusing to let his death be turned into a cash grab or a conspiracy treadmill. The right survives when it prizes discipline, factual clarity, and a willingness to hold even our own accountable — anything less lets the opposition define us, and hardworking Americans deserve a movement that behaves like adults, not reality-TV stars.