Nonarae Clausing

@tommyborumjokes @AwakenNotWoke @ItsmeucRenee Where would the entry wound be if it wasn’t his neck? Assuming we are talking about the exploding mic theory, are you saying the entry wound was his chest area? I agree with the exploding mic, but I feel like there would’ve been more blood if that was an exit wound

@AwakenNotWoke @ItsmeucRenee explosive pack sends projectiles through the victim tearing them up, to an onlooking witness it appears the person was shot from somewhere because they just go rigid, limp, and collapse. but one of the projectiles flew out his neck, and everyone saw the angle make NO SENSE.

how'd the medical examiner only find a 'fragment' of a projectile but not the other pieces, when we're told there was NO exit wound? if the 'bullet' fragmented, where are the other pieces? why weren't they in Charlie's neck with the fragment they found? Doesn't make sense 🫵🏻👀

@tommyborumjokes Personally, I don’t think he was hit with a bullet. I think what they found in him was the same fragmented plastic found in the backseat of the SUV.

@LadyGriz Last I checked, it is not JUSTICE if a potentially innocent person is framed for murder and given a death sentence for it. If others are involved, they need to be prosecuted too.

Let's be honest; at this point, it doesn't matter what concrete evidence is presented against Tyler Robinson. The cult will never believe it. They are like the Heaven's Gate Cult, who returned the telescope because it didn't show the “comet.”

@LadyGriz Have to disagree. In the justice system you are innocent until proven guilty. We have seen no concrete evidence that he is guilty, nor have we seen evidence that he wasn’t involved. Both can be true at once. We just want to truth. Idgaf who it incriminates.

@MathsTapir @LadyGriz Right obviously we don’t know what happened, that’s why we are still talking about it. I agree, I don’t think he was supposed to survive. It would’ve been easier for the narrative if he had died. But I mean, we don’t even know if it was him on the roof either

@ClausingNonarae @LadyGriz We don't know the details of the original plan. So we can't say what went according to plan and what didn't. But I agree with you that they never expected the murder to be put under this level of scrutiny. I also think Tyler Robinson was not meant to survive.

If Tyler Robinson is the “patsy,” then why isn't the bullet fragment a perfect match?

@LadyGriz @MathsTapir And if that’s the way it’s been, why would they have any reason to believe this wouldn’t be the same and that they wouldn’t get away with it?

@MathsTapir You would think if they were able to plan an international military operation, they could figure out this detail.

@MEWKOAmom @RealCandaceO @LauraLoomer @MrsErikaKirk I believe this is what it means to be ratio’d… right? lol

@RealCandaceO @LauraLoomer @MrsErikaKirk 973 likes for Larry 🤣

Wouldn’t shock me. Someone has to pay for her $2,000 blazers and 10 Nannies since she clearly doesn’t pay any attention to her kids. Too busy ranting about Erika. @MrsErikaKirk

@crimesceneart @RealCandaceO I can guarantee at least my prints and my husband’s prints are on it, because we own the gun. My point is that if I own the gun, and it was used to kill somebody, my prints being on it doesn’t prove I did the crime.

@ClausingNonarae @RealCandaceO You can’t guarantee anything. That’s not how it works.

Where are all my neocons who have been “overwhelmed” by the non existent evidence against Tyler Robinson? You should all be ashamed of yourselves. Hope the money was worth your soul.

@crimesceneart @RealCandaceO It’s actually really important to know who else’s prints are on the gun, and even more important to know if ballistics match. TRs clothes would also have residue on his clothing that would match the residue from the gun and on Charlie.

@RealCandaceO 7 sets of prints? What does this mean to you? Like, exactly. Because this is not typically the reality of print evidence found on firearms.

@Ganndeland @RealCandaceO I gotta say, I really really enjoyed that whole segment tonight 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

@RealCandaceO Baron presented the idea that perhaps there were 7 people on the roof top having hand orgy with the gun. Literally a mountain of overwhelming evidence yet he’s not whelmed 😂

@Jordan_S90 @denarae007 I hope they do, CANNOT WAIT for discovery and all the information that she can then subpoena and bring to the light for everyone to see.

@denarae007 We'll see about that

Alright Andrew Kolvet, It’s time for you to sue the shit out of Candace Owens and Baron Coleman. We know that Erika Kirk is going to as well, but you gotta do it too—and sooner rather than later. This woman is putting your life in danger. I know you know that, but she’s turning up the temperature now. Candace and her crony Baron are outright saying you were in on the plot to kill your good friend Charlie Kirk. Everyone with two brain cells knows that’s not true. But this is serious business. These idiots are trying to microanalyze every little irrelevant detail from that day. These two goons are saying that if your flight time was at a certain time, then you definitely knew Charlie was about to be killed. How do they deduce that? They don’t say, obviously, but it doesn’t matter. They are stochastic terrorists. They put the insinuations out into the aether and let their cultists fill in the blanks. SUE THEM, ANDREW!

@Phislash What happened to the iron dome that we paid for, that’s supposed to be protecting them..? Asking for a friend

@my7ktv @FozonCapital @em_Lazzy I mean, so far democrats are the only ones who’ve proven that they are ACTUALLY willing to put people in jail for crimes, whether they’ve actually committed a crime or not. I’m don’t love defending Dems, but so far reps have been a let down in that area soo

@FozonCapital @em_Lazzy I somewhat agreed but I don't agree with you saying Democrats need to check in on it once they take power back.. number one, who says they're going to get the power back and number 2. If you let a democrat do it it will stay covered up..

Erika Kirk ran an orphanage in Romania which funneled underage girls to Epstein associated modeling agencies in Paris. She then shows up as a model in an Epstein/Trump associated modeling agency in the U.S. She's introduced to Charlie Kirk by a Trump associate. They get married and everything is fine until he calls for the release of the Epstein files. He gets assassinated and she gets his money and the control of his organization. Why is she not also calling for the release of the files?

@_sorrengailll Yes

WOMAN TO WOMAN!!!!!! Be honest… if money wasn’t an issue, would you be a stay-at-home wife?

@kimmagagal2 Wow you really dug in the archive for this one. This was the video that actually introduced me to Candace in 2020. It was a parody about coming out conservative vs coming out as a lesbian. Nice try though 😅

I have a question! Why did Candance Omens wait until Charlie's horrific assassination to start talking BS about Erika? Why?

@FUtwitZZZZZZ @MrPitbull07 The only time I’d say no is if it’s a super high end restaurant where you’re expecting the waitstaff to be incredibly well paid already. If you ring up a $1500 bill at Perkins, you’re an ass if you don’t tip accordingly.

@FUtwitZZZZZZ @MrPitbull07 the receipt is literally gibberish, so the meal could literally be anything you want it to be. If it’s a $1000 bottle and $500 meal, they’re expecting to pay handsomely, so if it were in a normal restaurant then yeah they should still pay a nice tip.

@WeAreCharlieUS @grok @NormanTheOG @imelizabethlane Well, if Israel is the puppeteer, and he no longer supported the pro-Israel cause, then that pretty much killed his chance at the presidency anyway. Sooooooo

@grok @NormanTheOG @imelizabethlane @grok if a wife is using her husband as a ticket for power and her husband is highly likely to become President of the USA in a decade or so, would it make sense for the wife to murder her husband 10 years early and kill any chance she had to achieve the highest position of power

I’m going to be blunt. I’ve reached the point where I find Erika Kirk deeply disturbing, not because of rumors or gossip, but because of consistent, observable patterns of behavior. To be clear, everything I say in this post is my opinion, I’m not claiming this is a fact I’m saying this is what I think Erica Kirk is. I come from the world of acting and modeling. I’ve spent years around social climbers, opportunists, image-curators, and people who treat relationships as ladders, that is why I left that world. Most of these people are shallow and harmless. A few are dangerous. Erika falls into the latter category not because she is just ambitious, but because of how calculated and performative her ambition appears to be. I believe she maybe a psychopath. What stands out immediately is the reaction she provokes in people, which is very common with psychopaths. Across the board including from people who support her publicly, the private reaction is the same: “I can’t watch her.” Not criticism, just physical discomfort. People turn off interviews because the presentation feels artificial to the point of being unbearable. let me explain: That kind of response does not happen accidentally, and it does not happen often. Research in psychology shows that humans are highly sensitive to emotional incongruence, mismatches between facial expression, tone, and content. When affect appears simulated rather than genuine, the brain registers it as a threat signal. This activates discomfort and avoidance, even if the person cannot consciously explain why. So many of us felt this way but we could not explain why we could not watch her. Studies on psychopathy, particularly those building on the work of psychologists like Robert Hare, describe traits such as rehearsed emotional display, and shallow affect. These traits can create what observers experience as an “uncanny” interpersonal dynamic. The discomfort arises and people want to shut it off because most people rarely encounter extreme affective mimicry in everyday life, so the brain struggles to categorize what it is detecting. (Comment below if this is what you felt like when watching her.) Erica is attractive enough, and she had every tool in her position to sell this organically except for one thing - emotion. The entire story of what happened could have helped her sell this fully, she really would have been the last person on earth to be a suspect, if not for the FBI’s terrible mistakes, TPUSA’s lies, and her very fake performance. Plenty of attractive, ambitious women move through media spaces without triggering that response, even though we know what they are. This is about something else, an extreme disconnect between presentation she puts out and perceived authenticity. Erica is not the archetype of a model/actress seeking money and fame and then settling into a quiet life with a wealthy good looking husband. She’s the wolf type. Who wants to be in the place of that husband.She is not born for a supporting role, she’s a decision-maker type. She appears to pursue proximity to power, moving fluidly between television, nonprofits, branding opportunities, and ideological spaces that maximize exposure. Her previous partners are guys women like her would date, muscular, jacked, good-looking. Even though they are not people with huge potential, they are all somewhat established. They are good stepping stones until the right person shows up. Now, looking at her previous partners, I’d say Charlie probably was not her type visually, but he was exactly what she was looking for in a man - potential to be a great power. What Erica was looking for is the same thing Hillary Clinton was looking for when she met Bill. She recognized that Bill Clinton was her ticket to power, the power she could control and she was right. She realized she could create a great brand out of him and herself, and they still are a brand. The Clintons. No one in this world can say they love each other. They are a brand that works. This is why she’s sticking around despite Epstein and Lewinsky. Also, if you think Bill is the decision-maker there, you must have never been in close proximity to the Clintons. She moves the game, she is the decision-maker. Erica saw a brand with Charlie. She also saw that Charlie could one day become President of the United States if he wanted to. Charlie had the ear of the most powerful segment of any society - students! He was going to be a very important player in politics, and she was not missing that ride. What’s striking is how completely her public identity reshapes itself after that relationship begins. The aesthetic, the tone, the values, the presentation all change. Overnight, the persona shifts into the role that best fits Charlie’s world, devoted Christian, modest, supportive housewife. That kind of rapid adaptation is quite impressive for a usual person but not for a psychopath, they do it all the time. In my head story goes like this: For a moment, it works. She becomes the wife of a rising political figure with access to donors, institutions, and national platforms. At that point, the ceiling isn’t social media influence, it’s empire-building, foundations, global reach, a legacy brand - Kirks! It’s obvious that Charlie listens to her, whether it’s about donors or the trajectory of TPUSA. The most influential figure in any mentally healthy man’s life is his wife. She is going to be the biggest influence, and that’s just how it is. That is why you need to pick you partner wisely! Everything was going well until Charlie makes decisions based on conscience rather than expansion and money. He turns down money. He refuses to play dirty politics. I’m assuming someone like Erica who married into this because she had a vision for this brand would not be very happy that. The life she appears to have signed up for - power couple, expanding influence, historical relevance, was collapsing into something else entirely, domesticity, housewife kids and now Charlie's refusing to accept the money that can make him a global power. A supporting role instead of center stage is not her thing. Her husband died a few days ago, and she walks onto the stage as if she were born there. It comes naturally to her, she knows it, and she wants it. Just days after her husband’s death, she was already laying out ambitious plans for the company over Zoom. It’s obvious she was always deeply involved in the business and knew exactly where to pick up when her turn came. What people struggle to watch, what makes the screen unbearable, is not grief. It’s the absence of emotional continuity. Performances can be learned, trust me, as a former actress I can speak to that, but emotion can’t be improvised or mimicked if you’ve never experienced it. That’s why I think we are dealing with a psychopath who has never really experienced these emotions and does not know how to play them. And audiences feel it instantly. It’s fake. Again just my opinion. This isn’t an accusation of crime, I’m not claiming this is what happened and it's a fact. It’s an analysis I made after watching her long enough. And quite honestly I am sick of this shit.