Lady Liberty PR Team

I can count on one hand the number of TRUE MAHA fighters in government. It’s not many, folks. This movement has been driven almost entirely by moms. But one person who was fighting for these issues long before MAHA even had a name? Thomas Massie. We need to keep him in office.

Hi Charlie, May I ask why you wrote that you contacted me to no avail when this did not happen? In fact you were in communication with and received a response from Mitchell regarding a separate matter this month and you never once asked any questions about access to donors who dispute this video. Separately, can you make any logical sense out of why they chose to introduce the audio to the public without the video component? Respectfully, is your skill set AI? Were you the correct person to assess whether the video was real or made by the Hollywood A.I company that Turning Point met with following Charlie’s death? Were you even aware they met with an A.I company that specializes in post-humous video making? Does that at all strike you as odd? I don’t doubt your sincerity, but you underestimate their cunning and technological capabilities. I am personally in possession of material from Aspen which could easily identify whether the video they showed you was adapted using A.I. I suspect they know that.

It is 💯 morally inappropriate for a married woman, who is not Charlie’s wife, to publicly discuss intimate details about him, particularly when he is dead and his widow is still alive and raising their children. There is a line between commentary and exploitation, and this crosses it. Discussing politics, public statements, or even disagreements is one thing. Sitting around dissecting a dead man’s marriage, hinting at improprieties, implying betrayal, and turning deeply personal family matters into entertainment for clicks and engagement is something entirely different. What makes it worse is the self righteousness attached to it all. You cannot claim to stand for family values, morality, Christianity, decency, or protecting children while simultaneously feeding millions of people intimate gossip about a husband and wife whose children will one day read every word of it online. Those children did not ask for this. His widow did not ask for this. A grieving widow should not have to wake up every day wondering what new insinuation, rumor, or “just asking questions” segment is going to be blasted out to millions of viewers next. There is nothing brave about it. There is nothing journalistic about it. It is gossip packaged as righteousness. At some point people need to ask themselves what they are actually consuming and supporting. Because when someone profits from tearing apart the intimate details of a dead man’s marriage while his family is still trying to survive unimaginable loss, that is not truth seeking. That is cruelty for the sake of cruelty! And since when did “journalism” become gossiping about whether Charlie was a virgin or claiming he only dated Erika to make another girl jealous? That is not investigative reporting. That is middle school gossip with a microphone. It’s morally bankrupt. A man was murdered, children lost their father, and somehow people turned the conversation into psychoanalyzing his dating life for clicks and engagement. It’s so grotesque.