Puppet Edgar

If you want to see something incredibly cringe, just watch this video of Abigail Spanberger attempting to relate to the common folk by talking about March Madness.

Listen you human piece of garbage and anyone else here in the comments who wants to get this straight. First, it wasn't his office's job to do the investigation, so that's just salacious trash that should be condemned totally, not promoted like it's "news." Now, Charlie died in September of 2025. This conflict started in February 2026. Joe said this conversation happened in June 2025. Operation Midnight Hammer happened in June 2025. So we can establish that Charlie was talking to Joe in the context of Operation Midnight Hammer, but Charlie said those exact same things on camera to the world at the time. This isn't new information at all. It was always public straight from Charlie. Then Trump executed Operation Midnight Hammer, and a nervous Charlie Kirk said he supported President Trump 100%, though he didn't want a "regime-change war." He later said the operation was a success. Charlie Kirk backed President Trump 100%, even though he voiced his concerns before Trump made his decisions, both in public and in private. He supported Trump when he made these decisions and stood strongly with him, for him, and with and for the United States of America, even when he was nervous about it. Charlie's words in June of 2025 cannot be construed in any way to be applicable to the circumstances that led Trump to make these decisions in early 2026. It isn't hard to guess how Charlie would have felt about this situation, though, since he already demonstrated it for us in June last year. 1) He would be publicly and privately nervous about getting into such a war and would strongly caution against regime-change as a goal and boots on the ground as a strategy; 2) He would have voiced these concerns both on camera and in private and maintained a pro-Trump and pro-America, while "America First," messaging about the looming conflict; 3) Once things started in late February/early March, he would have backed President Trump 100% like he did on 100% of the other things he backed President Trump on 100%, 100% of the time; 4) He would have stood by the operation and President Trump's decision-making, even while voicing his anxieties, concerns, and beliefs about wanting the war/conflict to wrap up quickly and avoid boots on the ground and a deliberate strategy of regime change; 5) He would have reassured Americans that President Trump has the best intelligence, the best instincts, and the best capabilities to redefine conflict in the 21st century and to guide us through this war, consistently. To suggest anything else is to fail to have known Charlie Kirk or even to have paid attention to what he actually said in the relevant situation Kent is bringing up, standing on the silence of Charlie's coffin to do so. To tie this to Charlie's murder is nothing short of reckless and heinous, and it is likely so reckless that it will possibly interfere with bringing Charlie's murderer to justice, given the idiotic and opportunistic things he said. You are all vultures and skanks, and your judgment will be ruthless.