Charlie Kirk - so what now ?

[Citizen]

It is not my job to investigate this murder, but if you give me an explanation where the gloves don't fit, then of course I am going to ask questions about that.

Sure, ask away, but many of your questions above have already been answered. Surveillance and witness videos were out very shortly after the shooting which showed pretty clearly what happened and how. You not understanding or accepting the evidence doesn't make the evidence untrue.

Bottom line: If there's more to the story, and there could be, it has to be based on actual verifiable FACTS, not conjecture, rumors, pre-conceived notions, speculation, and false conclusions.

Candace Owens is presenting wild ever-changing accusations as facts on her public platform and dragging people through the mud with no evidence. THAT is the issue. If you can't understand just how vile and destructive this behavior is, I can't help you.

 

[Dude653]

Sure, ask away, but many of your questions above have already been answered. Surveillance and witness videos were out very shortly after the shooting which showed pretty clearly what happened and how. You not understanding or accepting the evidence doesn't make the evidence untrue.

Bottom line: If there's more to the story, and there could be, it has to be based on actual verifiable FACTS, not conjecture, rumors, pre-conceived notions, speculation, and false conclusions.

Candace Owens is presenting wild ever-changing accusations as facts on her public platform and dragging people through the mud with no evidence. THAT is the issue. If you can't understand just how vile and destructive this behavior is, I can't help you.

she's a grifter who makes money pushing conspiracy theories. she's like the female version of Alex Jones

 

[shittim]

she's a grifter who makes money pushing conspiracy theories. she's like the female version of Alex Jones[/QUOTE

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/T8PNMziBuNM

 

[Dude653]

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/T8PNMziBuNM

have you ever been tested for autism?

 

[shittim]

How did yours turn out? Well I hope.

 

[ThereRoseaLamb]

Melissa Dougherty wrote the following description [in part] for the above video:

"I don’t care if this makes me lose followers. We must learn to think critically. Honor Charlie Kirk’s memory by thinking the way he did: not blindly believing, getting swept up in conspiracy, but following the truth through verified evidence, not what one person claims is true. Paranoia is not discernment. Confidence is not competence. Charisma is not credibility. When someone needs to be the hero, the victim, and the authority all at once, then I have a hard time believing that truth is their goal. Seems like they're after power and control.

I fully expect a wave of backlash from Candace’s followers. I think that’s exactly why so many people stay silent. But I just don’t care. Remember: the ones trying to bring people back to reality aren’t being divisive. It’s the ones disconnected from reality who are. This is a core reason why I have such strong issues with unfounded and sensationalized conspiracy theories.

I will GLADLY take this video down and publicly repent if Candace Owens can prove, with verifiable evidence:

1. How TPUSA executives or associates were directly involved in Charlie Kirk’s murder with specific, detailed, and corroborated facts verified by law enforcement, journalists, or court proceedings beyond Candace Owens' personal claims.
2. That her claim that Tyler Robinson did not commit the murder is backed by credible, independently verified evidence... not speculation, assumptions, or anonymous claims, and beyond Candace Owens' personal claims.
3. That her alleged “inside sources” or “federal leaks” actually exist, and that they’ve provided verifiable, legally obtained, and independently confirmed information. Simply asserting “I have sources” or “I know people on both sides” without documentation, names, or corroboration does not count as proof beyond Candace Owens' personal claims.
4. That multiple reputable, independent investigators or journalists, outside of Candace Owens herself and her own media network, have verified her claims through credible, documented evidence.
5. That none of her public statements or implications have recklessly misled her audience, defamed innocent people, or emotionally exploited a murder case for engagement or personal branding.

I implore everyone to understand this: logic and critical thinking apply everywhere in life. This is a part of apologetics, testing what we believe and why we believe it, and seeking out objective truth. I've made multiple videos over the years talking about mind control tactics and how having a deeeeEEEP mistrust can cause paranoia under the guise of discernment. People fall into conspiracies and idolize those who start them because chronic mistrust warps their ability to interpret reality. When you’re convinced everything is rigged, everything starts looking like a clue. That paranoia becomes a worldview. And once someone believes they have “special knowledge,” it feeds their ego and they feel smarter, safer, and more in control than everyone else. The consequences? They stop looking for truth altogether. They instead start looking for confirmation. Evidence becomes optional. Relationships fracture. Dialogue dies. And they become vulnerable to manipulation by anyone who can exploit their fear and flatter their sense of “secret insight.”

She speaks for me. She has expressed my exact same thoughts and questions on CO's 'theories'. Critical, logical thinking and discernment needs to be a part of every conversation, especially when it comes to public accusations and rumor-mongering that can destroy lives.

Thanks for posting this. I'm going to look her up and give her a follow. She is 100% correct!!

 

[ZNP]

Sure, ask away, but many of your questions above have already been answered. Surveillance and witness videos were out very shortly after the shooting which showed pretty clearly what happened and how. You not understanding or accepting the evidence doesn't make the evidence untrue.

Bottom line: If there's more to the story, and there could be, it has to be based on actual verifiable FACTS, not conjecture, rumors, pre-conceived notions, speculation, and false conclusions.

Candace Owens is presenting wild ever-changing accusations as facts on her public platform and dragging people through the mud with no evidence. THAT is the issue. If you can't understand just how vile and destructive this behavior is, I can't help you.

Bottom line if the FBI thought they had everything this investigation would be over and the prosecutor would be going to trial. But the investigation is not over, the FBI knows they don't have all the answers and the prosecutor is not going to take a lame case full of holes.

 

[Citizen]

Bottom line if the FBI thought they had everything this investigation would be over and the prosecutor would be going to trial. But the investigation is not over, the FBI knows they don't have all the answers and the prosecutor is not going to take a lame case full of holes.

The murder was 4 weeks ago. Repeat: 4 weeks. No one rushes a major criminal case in 4 weeks. Cases like this can take up to a year to go to trial. But - your logic here - because they haven't already gone to trial then it must be a conspiracy? Do you even question your own statements and logic... ever?

 

[ZNP]

The murder was 4 weeks ago. Repeat: 4 weeks. No one rushes a major criminal case in 4 weeks. Cases like this can take up to a year to go to trial. But - your logic here - because they haven't already gone to trial then it must be a conspiracy? Do you even question your own statements and logic... ever?

You are. I am asking questions, i am not rushing to judgement, but you already have.

Candace Owens is selling her show just as all the other pundits are, but basically she is simply asking questions, that is what a journalist is supposed to do. So why does everyone want to shut her up?

 

[Citizen]

You are. I am asking questions, i am not rushing to judgement, but you already have.

Candace Owens is selling her show just as all the other pundits are, but basically she is simply asking questions, that is what a journalist is supposed to do. So why does everyone want to shut her up?

This is your statement: "Bottom line if the FBI thought they had everything this investigation would be over and the prosecutor would be going to trial."

You presented this as a statement of fact, so yes, that was you making a judgment. I'm not saying you don't have the right to make the statement. I'm simply calling you out on the obvious false logic of it.

 

[Citizen]

Candace Owens is selling her show just as all the other pundits are, but basically she is simply asking questions, that is what a journalist is supposed to do. So why does everyone want to shut her up?

There is asking a question... and then there's purposefully misleading the public and defaming others through the form of "just asking a question". But I don't think you'll admit to the difference.

"My insiders tell me that ZNP abuses puppies. What sort of person would do that with no remorse? I'm just asking the question. Anyone not questioning this is obviously abusing puppies, too."

Slander is still slander, even in the form of a question.

 

[SomeDisciple]

My insiders tell me that ZNP abuses puppies. What sort of person would do that with no remorse?

Okay so is there any other reason why we would believe ZNP abuses puppies? Does he have anything to gain?

 

[Citizen]

Okay so is there any other reason why we would believe ZNP abuses puppies?

Is there a reason I should believe Owens without evidence?

 

[ZNP]

This is your statement: "Bottom line if the FBI thought they had everything this investigation would be over and the prosecutor would be going to trial."

You presented this as a statement of fact, so yes, that was you making a judgment. I'm not saying you don't have the right to make the statement. I'm simply calling you out on the obvious false logic of it.

It is a fact. Kash Patel and Dan Bongino have both said the investigation is not over.

 

[ZNP]

There is asking a question... and then there's purposefully misleading the public and defaming others through the form of "just asking a question". But I don't think you'll admit to the difference.

"My insiders tell me that ZNP abuses puppies. What sort of person would do that with no remorse? I'm just asking the question. Anyone not questioning this is obviously abusing puppies, too."

Slander is still slander, even in the form of a question.

We have heard from multiple sources that are working within TPUSA and are therefore anonymous, that several very big donors to TPUSA stopped giving because of Tucker Carlson's stance on Israel and that Charlie Kirk refused to censor him. We have also heard that he ordered an audit 8 days before he was assassinated and that this audit has since been canceled.

These are specific claims, and it is common practice for a journalist to protect their sources. If either of these claims were false it would be easy to disprove. Simply have whoever does the books come forward and publicly say that those claims are false. It is one thing to ignore questions made on this forum, but when a podcast gets the most views and these things are going viral you cannot ignore them. So why is TPUSA ignoring this? Instead of trying to vilify Candace simply answer the question, did large donors pull out because of Charlie Kirk's relationship with Tucker Carlson and because he refused to censor Tucker? Is TPUSA going to change that policy? Did he order an audit and has that audit been cancelled and if so, why?

 

[ZNP]

Is there a reason I should believe Owens without evidence?

No, and no one is asking you to believe her and no one cares if you are interested in the questions she is asking.

The issue is you are trying to silence others from asking these questions. That is the problem.

 

[Citizen]

No, and no one is asking you to believe her and no one cares if you are interested in the questions she is asking.
The issue is you are trying to silence others from asking these questions. That is the problem.

Are we doing this again? Ok, cool. There are no victims here. Not even you. Participate in a free discussion at your own risk, I guess. I'll just leave this on repeat: Disagreeing with you, questioning you, or questioning your sources doesn't mean anyone is trying to silence you. You are still free to say exactly what you want to say.

 

[ZNP]

Are we doing this again? Ok, cool. There are no victims here. Not even you. Participate in a free discussion at your own risk, I guess. I'll just leave this on repeat: Disagreeing with you, questioning you, or questioning your sources doesn't mean anyone is trying to silence you. You are still free to say exactly what you want to say.

You said this: "Candace Owens is presenting wild ever-changing accusations as facts on her public platform and dragging people through the mud with no evidence. THAT is the issue. If you can't understand just how vile and destructive this behavior is, I can't help you." But you have not provided any quote of hers to support this. It is a judgement made without providing the evidence. I posted a video in which she talked about this case for 28 minutes, I listened to every point carefully and summarized it. What you are saying here I have not seen from her. Granted I only listened to this one video which was something of a summary by her. But these comments of yours are judgements: "vile", "how destructive this behavior is", "dragging people through the mud". You have not provided any evidence of this, you have not made a case, only baseless judgments. And yes, your behavior is the issue.

 

[ZNP]

You said this: "Candace Owens is presenting wild ever-changing accusations as facts on her public platform and dragging people through the mud with no evidence. THAT is the issue. If you can't understand just how vile and destructive this behavior is, I can't help you." But you have not provided any quote of hers to support this. It is a judgement made without providing the evidence. I posted a video in which she talked about this case for 28 minutes, I listened to every point carefully and summarized it. What you are saying here I have not seen from her. Granted I only listened to this one video which was something of a summary by her. But these comments of yours are judgements: "vile", "how destructive this behavior is", "dragging people through the mud". You have not provided any evidence of this, you have not made a case, only baseless judgments. And yes, your behavior is the issue.

Summary of what we know so far

Here are questions and facts concerning the assassination.

1. The Feds say a 30-06 bullet severed Charlies spine in his neck. This would seem to be absurd because if that bullet had severed the spine it would have decapitated Charlie. So this is the first very big question. Why would they be disingenuous about this?

2. How was it that security did not see this man on the roof with a gun?

3. How was this man able to walk away after shooting Charlie while carrying a rifle?

4. TPUSA is a very powerful political organization. Donald Trump and several other politicians gave this organization credit for getting him elected.

5. As a result of this assassination Erika Kirk became the CEO of TPUSA.

6. Also, immediately after this assassination, after Erika Kirk took control she canceled the full audit that Charlie had scheduled because of concerns over how the money donated to this non profit was being spent.

7. Charlie’s mom and sister both feel something is wrong with Erika and have said so. This is why they refused to come to the Memorial in Phoenix.

8. Charlie’s father also refused to come to the Memorial in Phoenix.

9. Some of the long time donors to TPUSA have frozen their donations after the audit was cancelled because of the lack of transparency.

10. Erika Kirk has direct links to the military industrial complex, her father is an executive for Raytheon and was instrumental in the building of Israel’s Iron Dome and her mother runs a company based in Arizona that receives military contracts. Erika herself ran a charity out of Romania called “Romanian Angels” for orphans. She also knew Trump prior to meeting Charlie because she was in his beauty pageants.

11. Erika Kirk was on Jesse Watters show and was interviewed, He asked her if she thought the person that was in custody was the one who killed her husband and was solely responsible. She refused to answer that question saying only that she trusts the investigators will find the truth.

12. The director of the FBI was also asked and said it was an ongoing investigation, they have not closed it yet and they are not claiming anything more than that the man in custody was involved. So neither Erika nor the FBI director are claiming the man in custody is the one who killed Charlie, they are not claiming the investigation is over, they are not even claiming they know who killed Charlie.

13. Meanwhile we have several very outspoken members of this thread with StanDupp being the latest one, telling people to shut up, the case is closed. Think of the arrogance to say this when the FBI director and Charlie’s widow won’t even say that. StanDupp is saying that anyone who does not go along with his demand that the case is closed is getting “The Clueless Award”. He also refers to anyone who is questioning this and concerned with the truth about what happened as liars, cheats, frauds and heretics.

Which of course raises the question, why would anyone, especially some guy who has only been on this forum for two weeks be so intent on shutting down any discussion about the Charlie Kirk Assassination? Why does Citizen accuse people who ask these questions of dragging people through the mud? Why is it vile to ask these questions? What is the motive behind that?

 

[shittim]

Can we say "agenda"?