UVU REVIEW SYNOPSIS An independent review of Utah Valley University’s security planning and response surrounding the assassination of Charlie Kirk found significant gaps in preparation for the high-profile outdoor event. Among the most important findings: • No comprehensive written security plan: The event did not have a formal Security Assessment or written Event Action Plan outlining staffing, responsibilities, communications, contingencies and when additional resources should be requested. • Open outdoor venue created vulnerabilities: The area had multiple access points, adjacent buildings, elevated walkways and numerous locations overlooking the event, complicating perimeter security and situational awareness. • No comprehensive perimeter or screening: There was no controlled perimeter, formal attendee screening or credentialing system. Non-ticketed attendees generally could enter the event area without going through a controlled security point. • Rooftop concerns were raised before the event: TPUSA security specifically raised concerns about student roof access near Kirk’s location. UVU restricted the Hall of Flags walkway and posted two officers there, but reviewers described that as a reactive measure rather than part of a documented site-security plan. • Security cameras were not being specifically monitored for the event: Camera footage proved valuable after the shooting, but no one had been assigned to monitor relevant feeds in real time for event security. Reviewers recommend considering technology that could detect people on rooftops or in restricted areas. • Staffing and resources were a concern: Reviewers found the lack of a formal security assessment, reliable attendance estimate and written plan made it difficult to systematically determine how many officers and resources were needed. • No ambulance was staged at the event: Two UVU EMTs were there with trauma packs and provided aid after the shooting, but they could not transport patients, including Kirk, to a hospital. • Problems identified years earlier resurfaced: A 2023 active-assailant exercise had already identified communication and situational-awareness problems. Reviewers said similar issues surfaced again on Sept. 10, suggesting earlier corrective actions had not been fully implemented or validated. • Emergency alerts were problematic: The report says no immediate campus alert was activated by the police chief as incident commander, and subsequent alerts included delays, changing guidance and contradictory information. The review also emphasizes what worked, including officers responding quickly after the shooting and UVU’s existing emergency plans and security technology. The report’s larger conclusion is that many of those existing resources were not sufficiently integrated into a formal, coordinated security operation for the event.

🚨Did Candace Owens take money from Harvey Weinstein? Yesterday, prosecutors said Weinstein was recorded offering an unnamed podcaster $1.75 MILLION to "contaminate the jury pool." Candace denies being paid or offered anything. But here's how she described the creation of her "Harvey Speaks" series in her own words. Candace says she signed a limited NDA when she first began speaking with Weinstein and later had to get released from it before she could publicly launch the series. She described her first prison call with Weinstein as a "business meeting": "Like New Yorkers negotiating a business deal." They discussed a larger docuseries, including composers and production costs. "Didn’t think that we had the budget to do it in the right way." She says Weinstein was talking to three other people “who have much better experience and a way further reach,” and made her audition for the role: "He's making me pitch myself." "I realized at that point that I was trying out for one of his movies in a way, and I had to kind of sell myself." Candace says she pitched herself for the interview, hung up, and only then began digging into the case after the person who connected them sent her material about it. She later said: "I wrangled it away from the mainstream people that had wanted to do this sit down with him." "I’m grateful that Harvey’s team has sort of trusted me to just do what I do best." She also explicitly tied the timing of the series to Weinstein’s retrial: "His retrial begins on April 15th... It’s why I wanted to begin this series because I want everyone paying attention to the trial." Weinstein later thanked Candace for "helping me reach millions of new supporters." Questions for @RealCandaceO: What exactly was the "business deal"? What did the NDA cover? Who actually initiated the relationship? Who was going to fund the proposed docuseries? And was money discussed in any other way? You constantly talk about exposing the Epstein class. Yet you launched a series defending Harvey Weinstein: a convicted rapist accused of sexual misconduct by more than 80 women, who you said gave millions to the ADL, and a man with documented ties to Jeffrey Epstein. Prosecutors didn't name the podcaster or say anyone was paid. But what other podcaster put out a series defending Harvey Weinstein? You've repeatedly demanded that Charlie Kirk's friends and family release private messages, calls, and personal records so your audience can investigate them. So will you apply the same standard to yourself? Release the calls. Release the NDA. Let your audience see exactly what was discussed. Here are your own words.👇