If the love of my life was murdered in front of a live audience, and I was then accused of being involved, my behavior might also seem strange to random commenters online. This ain't rocket science.
"Please don't investigate my husband's death" and cancelling his company-wide audit is a really weird grief response. Lying about his text messages is also weird. TPUSA reporters suddenly cheering on war is pretty weird too!
This is just a reskinned version of the believe all women discussion where literally no behavior could call rape accusers into question because "everyone responds differently."
Let's be real, this isn't about any investigation, but about the rampage Candace Owens has been on - accusing everyone in Charlie's orbit of betraying him and being complicit in his murder.
This is just a reskinned version of the believe all women discussion where literally no behavior could call rape accusers into question because "everyone responds differently."
Big difference is that rape accusers have an accusations they're trying to prove, while in this case, people are claiming that this poor woman was complicit in her husband's murder. If you can successfully cast some doubt on a rape accuser, that will bring the claim beneath the 'reasonable doubt' threshold. But you need gigantic amounts of proof for this nefarious business.
Let's be real, this isn't about any investigation, but about the rampage Candace Owens has been on - accusing everyone in Charlie's orbit of betraying him and being complicit in his murder.
Well, the accused have acted in the guiltiest way possible, so as tilted as Candace gets I think her questions deserve some answers. I don't know if they were plotting murder - but they're covering up something.
Big difference is that rape accusers have an accusations they're trying to prove, while in this case, people are claiming that this poor woman was complicit in her husband's murder. If you can successfully cast some doubt on a rape accuser, that will bring the claim beneath the 'reasonable doubt' threshold. But you need gigantic amounts of proof for this nefarious business.
There's a ton of reasonable doubt to be had here. The FBI is obviously trying to pull the wool over the public's eyes for some reason. TPUSA is doing their best to help with their claims of superman necks and nonexistent 911 calls. Who's the new CEO of TPUSA? Erika. How long did it take for her to be appointed? A couple days?
If she wasn't running a multimillion dollar company that directly profited from Charlie's death and reversed course from Charlie's most important views in life, I'd never question her. But... she is.
Spouses aren't sacred untouchable territory for investigations.
Well, the accused have acted in the guiltiest way possible
What's acting guilty? I don't think I can judge that. If the love of your life was murdered and then people started accusing you of being the killer, I'm pretty sure you'd act pretty strange too in ways people may call 'acting guilty'.
There's a ton of reasonable doubt to be had here. The FBI is obviously trying to pull the wool over the public's eyes for some reason. TPUSA is doing their best to help with their claims of superman necks and nonexistent 911 calls. Who's the new CEO of TPUSA? Erika. How long did it take for her to be appointed? A couple days?
My point was that there is a much higher evidentiary bar when the burden of proof is with you than when it goes against you. The burden of proof is with the accuser, which is why it's easier to disprove (sufficiently) an accusation than it is to prove involvement in a murder.
What's acting guilty? I don't think I can judge that. If the love of your life was murdered and then people started accusing you of being the killer, I'm pretty sure you'd act pretty strange too in ways people may call 'acting guilty'.
Why did she lie that Charlie didn't text anyone about fearing for his life before he died?
I was speaking towards TPUSA leadership, anyway. Andrew Kolvet posted about Charlie having a steel neck and just boosted an obviously fraudulent lip reading of Tyler Robinson. Blake Neff lied about Charlie's feelings about Israel and posed a sneaky, unreasonable ultimatum to Candace. Mike McCoy's father lied about what he was doing and Mike's behavior doesn't really make sense (he refuses to explain it).
My point was that there is a much higher evidentiary bar when the burden of proof is with you than when it goes against you. The burden of proof is with the accuser, which is why it's easier to disprove (sufficiently) an accusation than it is to prove involvement in a murder.
If Erika doesn't want to be questioned, she can pass the CEO job to someone else.
She 100% was complicit, but the "blame Israel" cuck army is leading the discussion away from the truth.
We know she's fucking Vance. We know natalism failed in their efforts to cement their unwanted cult as dictators of America. We know that Kirk's death was immediately used to shill natalism.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that Vance and Erika Kirk planned the assassination together to prop up the absolutely dismal level of support for their pathetic natalism drive. Trump is a passenger in his own government.
"Please don't investigate my husband's death" and cancelling his company-wide audit is a really weird grief response. Lying about his text messages is also weird. TPUSA reporters suddenly cheering on war is pretty weird too!
This is just a reskinned version of the believe all women discussion where literally no behavior could call rape accusers into question because "everyone responds differently."
Let's be real, this isn't about any investigation, but about the rampage Candace Owens has been on - accusing everyone in Charlie's orbit of betraying him and being complicit in his murder.
Big difference is that rape accusers have an accusations they're trying to prove, while in this case, people are claiming that this poor woman was complicit in her husband's murder. If you can successfully cast some doubt on a rape accuser, that will bring the claim beneath the 'reasonable doubt' threshold. But you need gigantic amounts of proof for this nefarious business.
Well, the accused have acted in the guiltiest way possible, so as tilted as Candace gets I think her questions deserve some answers. I don't know if they were plotting murder - but they're covering up something.
There's a ton of reasonable doubt to be had here. The FBI is obviously trying to pull the wool over the public's eyes for some reason. TPUSA is doing their best to help with their claims of superman necks and nonexistent 911 calls. Who's the new CEO of TPUSA? Erika. How long did it take for her to be appointed? A couple days?
If she wasn't running a multimillion dollar company that directly profited from Charlie's death and reversed course from Charlie's most important views in life, I'd never question her. But... she is.
Spouses aren't sacred untouchable territory for investigations.
What's acting guilty? I don't think I can judge that. If the love of your life was murdered and then people started accusing you of being the killer, I'm pretty sure you'd act pretty strange too in ways people may call 'acting guilty'.
My point was that there is a much higher evidentiary bar when the burden of proof is with you than when it goes against you. The burden of proof is with the accuser, which is why it's easier to disprove (sufficiently) an accusation than it is to prove involvement in a murder.
Why did she lie that Charlie didn't text anyone about fearing for his life before he died?
I was speaking towards TPUSA leadership, anyway. Andrew Kolvet posted about Charlie having a steel neck and just boosted an obviously fraudulent lip reading of Tyler Robinson. Blake Neff lied about Charlie's feelings about Israel and posed a sneaky, unreasonable ultimatum to Candace. Mike McCoy's father lied about what he was doing and Mike's behavior doesn't really make sense (he refuses to explain it).
If Erika doesn't want to be questioned, she can pass the CEO job to someone else.
She 100% was complicit, but the "blame Israel" cuck army is leading the discussion away from the truth.
We know she's fucking Vance. We know natalism failed in their efforts to cement their unwanted cult as dictators of America. We know that Kirk's death was immediately used to shill natalism.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that Vance and Erika Kirk planned the assassination together to prop up the absolutely dismal level of support for their pathetic natalism drive. Trump is a passenger in his own government.
Eat lead.
Absolutely brilliant. Keep at it.