Candace Owens’ Fort Huachuca timeline sparks drama — ‘I was home in Nashville…’ Cabot Phillips sets the record straight

Conservative commentator Candace Owens is at the centre of fresh controversy following her spotlight on an alleged eyewitness account connected to events at Fort Huachuca, Arizona, in the days before the assassination of American conservative activist Charlie Kirk. The debate has widened this week after another public figure, Cabot Phillips, took to social media to categorically deny claims about his involvement or presence at the military base, offering a detailed personal alibi.




At the heart of the controversy is Mitch Snow, a retired US Army medic who appeared on Owens’ podcast asserting he was at Fort Huachuca in early September and may have seen individuals connected to Kirk’s circle at the time. Owens has repeatedly emphasised that Snow’s account is not definitive proof but said it raises unanswered questions about the timeline of events leading up to Kirk’s death.

Snow’s claims have become a talking point because they directly challenge established alibis and existing public understanding of where key people were in the days before the tragedy. But independent verification of his statements is still lacking, and no official documents have confirmed his presence or the identities of others he says he saw.




Adding another dimension to the discussion, media personality Cabot Phillips took to social media to refute rumours linking him to Fort Huachuca. Phillips posted that he was not at the base on September 8 or 9 and detailed that he had been in Nashville with his family. He also shared that on the afternoon of September 8, he attended an ultrasound appointment with his wife and later prepared for a gender reveal celebration for his son.


Phillips further shared that he provided photos and surveillance footage to support his account, challenging critics to review the evidence before circulating accusations.




The unfolding narrative has stirred internal controversy within conservative media circles. Commentators like Tim Pool have openly criticised Owens’ focus on these unverified theories, arguing that they risk harming broader conservative messaging and confusing key voter groups. Meanwhile, others have framed responses as coordinated pushback against sensational claims that lack documentation.

Despite the criticism, Owens continues to assert that outstanding questions about Fort Huachuca, alibis and timelines warrant rigorous public scrutiny, rather than dismissal. The impasse reflects ongoing tensions over how commentary and speculation intersect with rapidly evolving narratives in high‑profile investigations.