Jack Mayhoff
1.2K posts

Jack Mayhoff
@BullshidoMaster
82nd Airborne US Army Vet. 1/505 PIR Afghanistan 2002-2003

@TLHb6bh How about a recent widow, gleeful over sales merchandise, 5 days after her husband was assassinated...is that morally acceptable?




You’re pretending “implication” doesn’t matter. It absolutely does. She repeatedly implied that Gary/@paramounttactcl was part of a behind-the-scenes TPUSA/Erika Kirk/Andrew Colvette operation. The implications were clear: Candace implied Gary was taking direction from TPUSA. Candace implied Paramount Tactical was being used as a PR weapon against her. Candace implied Gary was involved in a coordinated pressure campaign to stop or control her interview with Mitch Snow. Candace implied Gary was connected to threats or intimidation behind the scenes. A normal person hearing that would not walk away thinking, “Oh, she just means he had an opinion.” They would reasonably believe Gary was secretly working with TPUSA or Erika Kirk to target Candace. That is exactly how defamation by implication works. You do not have to say the exact words “Gary is paid by TPUSA” for the meaning to be defamatory. If you arrange facts, insinuations, and accusations in a way that causes the audience to believe something false and damaging, that can still be defamatory. So no, I didn’t lie about the implications. I understood them exactly the way Candace intended her audience to understand them.






Undeniable proof that @RealCandaceO lied. She didn’t just get it wrong — she knowingly lied to her audience, treating them like idiots. This is also clear evidence of reckless disregard for the truth and actual malice in her defamation of Brian Harpole and Erika Kirk. I break down exactly why she’s going to lose the Harpole defamation case. Watch below 👇 *Uploaded the directly to X bc I know some don't like switching platforms to view videos. This one's important for people to see. Please share! @dhillonlaw






What do you mean that you had shut down your podcast and gone private shortly before Charlie’s assassination? What do you mean that you never watched one episode of Charlie’s podcast? What do you mean that if someone had asked you a week prior to Charlie’s death how you felt about him, you would have said, “eh, you could take him or leave him… he wasn’t a saint, he wasn’t god”? You’ve spent the last 7 months making money off a man you openly admit you didn’t really care about. You had shut down your podcast and gone private, but then Charlie is assassinated and suddenly you care? Suddenly you become one of the loudest voices in the room? The truth is you saw an opportunity to capitalize on a man’s death and you took it. Then you pushed wild conspiracies and attacked his widow for a man that, by your own words, you could “take or leave.” You piled on and encouraged attacks against Erika. You demanded alibis for accusations you created out of thin air, while at the same time saying Tyler Robinson doesn’t have to prove anything and that the burden is on the prosecution to prove the case against him. So which is it? Because according to you, Tyler deserves the presumption of innocence, but Erika has to prove hers to the internet mob you helped create. You weaponized speculation, outrage, and social media for clicks and money. You turned a tragedy into entertainment. You helped spread harassment and suspicion toward a grieving widow while pretending to stand for truth and justice. But “eh’ you could take him or leave him”, right? You’re a reprobate, Baron Coleman.




CIA seized 40 boxes of JFK and MK-ULTRA files that were being processed by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) for declassification.



Candace scolds Erika for standing up for herself and tells her to put on her big girl glitter pants or stay home




Ok, does everyone remember when I said I had left a voicemail with the Metropolitan Police Department, Nashville Division, well, a VERY NICE LADY just called me back, and asked me had I written anything down at the bottom, and remember I said one of the questions I asked was HAS THIS BEEN EXPUNGED, she had ME read to her what I had written, she said she couldn’t legally tell me anything unless I spoke it to her on the phone, so once I read to her word for word what I had asked on the request form she said I’m so glad you read that to me because now I CAN legally tell you that YES, it has indeed been expunged, and so there’s no longer any bodycam footage because of the expungement.. @LauraLoomer















